1951-05-10

Mr. C. E. Bennett (Grey North):: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege, I should like to draw the attention of the house to the fact that the Owen Sound Mercurys won the Canadian senior hockey championship last evening. We in Grey North are of course exceedingly proud of the Mercurys. I regret that my duties here prevented me from seeing all but one game of the finals. To my good friend the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River, I should like to say that his team, the Fort Frances Canadians, were worthy opponents. They were not quite good enough, but they proved to be a formidable hockey club. What is more important, they were good losers and good sports.
I should also like to remind hon. members that the Owen Sound Crescents won the dominion senior lacrosse championship last year.


Mr. Graydon:: They dropped out this year, though.


Colin Emerson Bennett: Therefore, Mr. Speaker, the historic Mann and Allan cups, emblematic of two national titles, are in the city of Owen Sound, a precedent in the annals of Canadian sport.



EXCISE TAX ACT


Mr. F. S. Follwell (Hastings South):: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege, I should like to refer to page 2589 of Hansard of May 1, where I called the attention of hon. members, particularly of the Minister of Finance, to a product known as Caramel Com Snacks. I submitted to the minister that the product should be treated in the same way as popcorn, should be outside the Excise Tax Act and made tax free. I was dismayed to find that many hon. members had not heard of this product. The manager of the W. T. Hawkins Company, of Tweed, Ontario, Mr. Armand Turpin, has sent a package of caramel corn snacks for the minister so that he may have the opportunity to decide whether the product 80709-183i
is comparable to popcorn. He has also sent a standard package of Cheezies, another product made by this company.


Mr. Ross (Souris):: A bottle of beer with it?


Frank Sidney Follwell: He has also sent a standard package for every member of the house and I will have them distributed. In addition there will be an aerial view of the village-of Tweed sent with the compliments of the' Tweed chamber of commerce.


Mr. Harkness:: What was the question of privilege?


Mr. Fraser:: Just something to chew on.


Mr. Abbott:: The privilege of expanding one's waistline.



QUESTIONS


CIVIL SERVICE


Mr. Fulton:: 1.	How many employees of all classifications, including permanent and temporary civil servants and all other appointments outside the civil service, including also crown companies but excluding service personnel in the defence department, have been taken on in the government service from the 1st of May, 1945, to date?
2.	What is the total number of releases for all categories covered by question No. 1 during the same period?


Mr. Rinfrei:: I understood that the hon. member for Kamloops wished to amend this question, and that it was to be dropped.


Mr. Fulion:: I have not had time to do that as yet, so I would be prepared to have this question dropped now and I shall reword the whole thing.


Mr. Speaker:: Dropped.



SALES TAX


Mr. Bertrand:: 1.	Is the ten per cent sales tax imposed on paper and ink used in the production of newspapers?
2.	Is the said tax of ten per cent imposed on the paper and ink used in the production of reviews and magazines?
3.	If not, what are the reasons therefor?


Mr. Rinfret:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Provision is made in the Excise Tax Act for exemption from the tax for "magazines and literary papers unbound, regularly issued at stated intervals, not less frequently than

Questions
four times yearly, and printing paper and printing ink for use exclusively in their production".
3.	This is a matter of government policy.



IMMIGRATION, 1950

Mr. Laing:: 1.	How many immigrants arrived in Canada in 1950?
2.	How many oi each nationality?
3.	What was the destination, by provinces, of such immigrants who entered Canada at Montreal, Saint John. Halifax and Vancouver?
4.	Does the immigration department provide provincial labour departments with details concerning individual immigrants either before or after their arrival in Canada?


Mr. Harris (Grey-Bruce):: 1. 73,912.
3.	See statement below.
4.	No.
Immigration to Canada, showing Nationality, for the Calendar Year 1950 Albanian, 32; Austrian, 395; Belgian, 669; British, 15,399; Bulgarian, 95; Central American, 14; Chinese, 1,731; Czechoslovakian, 1,840; Danish, 905; Dutch, 7,211; Estonian, 2,026; Finnish, 444; French, 1,209; German, 1,772; Greek, 845; Hungarian, 1,970; Icelandic, 9; Irish Republican, 425; Israelite, 103; Italian, 8,939; Japanese, 12; Latvian, 1,828; Lithuanian, 1,081; Mexican, 6; Norwegian, 239; Polish, 12,075; Portuguese, 11; Roumanian, 1,163; Russian, 1,515; South American, 91; Spanish, 20; Swedish, 155; Swiss, 475; Syrian, 98; Turkish, 13; Ukrainian, 120; U.S.A.
2. See statement below.	Yugoslavian,	1,702; Others, 122; total,	73,912.Immigration to Canada from overseas,	by intended	province	of destination	at theunder-mentioned ports of entry,	for the calendar year 1950	Montreal	Saint John	Halifax	Vancouver	TotalsNewfoundland 	1	13	....	14Nova Scotia 	8	16	487	o	513Prince Edward Island	1	2	73	....	76New Brunswick 	6	47	208	2	263Quebec 	187	289	5,889	28	6,393Ontario 	313	846	17,278	110	18,547Manitoba 	23	104	1,745	36	1,908Saskatchewan 	16	168	905	15	1,104Alberta 	32	201	2,715	55	3,003British Columbia 	54	174	1,466	262	1,956Yukon and Northwest	Territories 	-	-	8	-	8Totals 	641	1,847	30,787	510	33,785



CHARLOTTETOWN-MURRAY HARBOUR, P.E.I., BUS SERVICE

Mr. McLure:: Has the Canadian National Railways been granted a franchise for a bus service running from Charlottetown to Murray Harbour, Prince Edward Island?


Mr. Benidickson:: No.
WHEAT-STORAGE AND CARLO ADINGS Mr. Diefenbaker:
1.	How many bushels of wheat are in storage in the local elevators in the provinces of Saskatchewan, Alberta and Manitoba?
2.	How many elevators are full and unable to provide any further storage?
3.	How much damp wheat is in (a) Manitoba; (b) Saskatchewan?
4.	How many cars a day have been loaded with wheat in the last ten days from loading points in <a) Saskatchewan; (b) Manitoba?
[Mr. Rinfret.l


Mr. Mcllraiih:: 1.	Wheat in store country elevators as at April 26, 1951:
Bus.
Manitoba	 9,583,271
Saskatchewan	 59,252,119
Alberta	 33,217,555
Total (bus.)	 102,052,945
2.	Data respecting the number of country elevators that are full are not available. (Official rated storage capacity of country elevators in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta, 277,330,350 bushels: total of all grains in store in country elevators, 135,580,465 bushels; estimated country elevator surplus storage capacity, 141,749,885 bushels, less working space required.)
3.	No official estimate.

4. Daily carloadings of wheat in Manitoba and Saskatchewan from April 26 to May 7:
1951	Manitoba	SaskatchewanApril	26	.... 137	333April	27 	
112	509April	28 	
175	378April	30 	
127	330May	1 	. ... 112	341May	2 . . .	
192	526May	3 . . .	
147	462May	4 . . .	.. . . 135	542May	5 . . . .	,... 119	477May	7 . . . .	.... 153	4991409	4397Daily averages 141	440



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Edmund Davie Fulton: Orders for Returns
2.	In each of the years 1940 to 1950 inclusive, what was the average price of newsprint?
3.	In each year from 1940 to 1950 inclusive, what proportion of the total output was assigned to the export trade?
4.	To what countries, and what quantity to each of them?


Mr. Mcllrailh:: Return tabled.


POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT
Mr. Hodgson:: 1.	How many employees of the Post Office Department have been laid off since January 1, 1951, indicating (a) temporary employees; (b) permanent employees?
2.	How many of the above were veterans of either the first or second world war?
3.	How many permanent employees were engaged by the Post Office Department from January 1, 1940, to December 31, 1950?
4.	How many of the above were veterans?


WHEAT AND COARSE GRAINS
[Stage Direction]
1.	What was the total paid by the Department of Finance for professional and special services in the fiscal year 1950-51?
2.	What person, persons, firms or companies received payments of over $10,000 under this heading in the said year, what was the actual amount of each payment, and for what service was the payment made in each case?

Mr. Fullon:: 1.	What was the total paid by the Department of Veterans Affairs for professional and special services in the fiscal year 1950-51?
2.	What person, persons, firms or companies received payments of $10,000 or more under this heading in the said year, what was the actual amount of each payment, and for what service was the payment made in each case?


AIR TRAINING PLAN, SASKATOON  HOUSING
Mr. Knight:: 1.	What is the total number of personnel likely to be engaged in any full capacity air training plan at Saskatoon, with the extension of facilities presently planned?
2.	What plans has the government for the housing of such personnel?
3.	Is there any firm agreement between the federal government, the provincial government and the municipal authority of Saskatoon in relation to a housing construction program in that city?
4.	Are negotiations in that regard under way?
5.	If so, what stage have such negotiations reached?


NEWSPRINT
Mr. Bertrand:: 1. From 1940 to 1950 inclusive, what was the newsprint output in Canada, in tons, for each of these years?
On the orders of the day:


Mr. H. R. Argue (Assiniboia):: In view of
the fact that farmers are in Urgent need of money for seeding expenses, will the Minister of Trade and Commerce inform the house what proportion of the interim payments on wheat and coarse grains, and of the final payment on the five-year pool, has been sent out, and when such payments are likely to be completed?


Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: The hon. member for
Assiniboia has given me notice of his question, and I should like to say that the payments involved in the increased initial payments for wheat, oats and barley delivered in 1950-51 were completed well in advance of seeding. In addition, the final payment on the five-year pool is about at the halfway mark and should be completed within the next two weeks.
Payment of the 1950-51 oats and barley increases was completed on March 29. This involved the issuance of 182,203 cheques, covering a total amount of $16,875,169.30. Payment of the 1950-51 wheat increase was completed on April 24. This payment amounted to $49,630,921.39 and involved the issuance of 322,834 cheques. As of last night 224,753 cheques had been issued in connection with the final payment on the five-year pool. These cheques amounted to $53,520,169.98. The total payment will involve about 450,000 cheques and an amount of $119,109,000. As I have mentioned, this payment should be completed; within two weeks.

Inquiries of the Ministry CROWN PROPERTIES


QUESTION AS TO PAYMENTS TO MUNICIPALITIES IN LIEU OF TAXES
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. Earl Caiherwood (Haldimand):: In
view of the fact that in the speech from the throne it was announced that parliament would be asked to consider measures with respect to grants to municipalities in lieu of taxation on crown property, will the Minister of Finance state whether this legislation will be brought in during the present session, and, if so, when he will make a statement to this effect?


Douglas Charles Abbott: As indicated in the speech from the throne, it is the intention to bring in a bill to provide for the payments of these grants in lieu of taxation, which during the past two years have been provided by an item in the estimates.


NEWSPRINT
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Would the Minister of Justice care
to comment on a dispatch from Washington concerning a proposal in the house of representatives to make Canadian newsprint companies subject to United States anti-trust laws? Would it not be appropriate for our own combines investigation commissioner to inquire into the alleged monopolistic practices of this industry?


Hon. Stuari S. Garson (Minister of Justice):: I wish to thank my hon. friend for having given me notice of this question. I have read the Washington dispatch reported in the Ottawa Journal of May 5 to which my hon. friend has just referred, and naturally have discussed this dispatch with the commissioner under the Combines Investigation Act. The situation alleged by Congressman Celler would have formed a possible subject for inquiry under the Havana charter for international trade organization had that charter been ratified by the United States of America, which sponsored it, and if as a consequence of United States ratification it had been ratified by other countries including Canada. The Havana charter, however, has not been ratified by the United States of America or by the other countries which are parties to it with, I believe, the single exception of Australia.
Our combines investigation commission has no jurisdiction to inquire formally into an international situation which does not
involve a combine detrimental to the Canadian public. Moreover, the effect of any information now before the Combines Investigation Act commissioner does not, in his opinion, justify an inquiry at the present time under our act into the newsprint industry. The information now before the combines investigation commission is that the Canadian newsprint industry is taking all reasonable steps to increase production, and that the prices Canadian newsprint producers are charging for sales of newsprint to the United States are exceptionally reasonable, having regard to the prices that could be obtained on the open market for newsprint at the present time if Canadian newsprint producers were to take full trading advantage of the present strong demand.
Under all the circumstances I do not think it would be desirable for me to comment further on a news dispatch to the effect that a subcommittee of a legislative body of another country has suggested the study of a bill to enforce the production of records of foreign countries.


FOOD SITUATION
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. M. Macdonnell (Greenwood):: I
wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister, of which I have given notice. Will he advise the house whether, having regard to the famine conditions in India, and particularly having regard to the reported offers of help from China and Russia, the government proposes to recommend any action to the House of Commons?
Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime
Minister):	Our high commissioner in New
Delhi has been and is in touch with the government of India about the food situation in that country, but I am sorry I am not able today to give any answer to the hon. member different from that which I gave to the question asked by the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue) on May 2. The government is not yet in a position to make any announcement to the house.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. W. Noseworihy (York South):: Mr. Speaker, is the Minister of Labour aware that the W. J. Stewart Company of Toronto is binding ten thousand copies of seamen's
(Mr. Howe.]

discharge books for the king's printer while the union employees of that company are on strike and picketing the plant?


Hon. Milton F. Gregg (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, as the king's printer is responsible to my colleague, the Secretary of State, I shall bring this question to his attention as soon as he returns.



INQUIRIES FOR RETURNS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. William Bryce (Selkirk):: I should
like to direct a question to the responsible minister. On February 19 a question in my name was passed as an order for return, and I have not yet received the answer. I should like to have it.


Mr. Ray Thomas (Wetaskiwin):: Will the
Minister of Public Works investigate an order for return passed in my name on March 19?


Hon. Alphonse Fournier (Minister of Public Works):: I shall do that, with pleasure.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Dion in the chair.
DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL DEFENCE Defence forces-
245. To provide for the defence forces of the navy, army and air services and defence research and development, and to authorize total commitments for this purpose of $3,831,270,000 including authority notwithstanding section 29 of the Consolidated Revenue and Audit Act, to make commitments for the current year of $1,924,170,835 and commitments against future years of $1,907,099,165 against which commitments it is estimated that actual expenditures in 1951-52 will not exceed $1,595,050,000 of which 8183,050,000 will be provided from section 3 of the Defence Appropriation Act, 1950, as supplemented by item 246, $1,412,000,000.


Mr. Claxion:: Mr. Chairman, when the
committee rose last night I was answering some of the questions put to me by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar. The next question related to aircraft production, and the hon. member said that we had spent $30 million in 1950 but had not produced a plane that year. He asked why. He also said he did not know whether the F-86 had been produced yet, or whether any aircraft have been produced in addition to the two CF-100. The situation is, Mr. Chairman, that it takes a minimum of four years to develop a new type of aircraft, which was about the time taken in the case of the CF-100, the design of which began in the late months of 1946. From the time of having an aircraft that will
Supply-National Defence fly and that it is desirable to produce, it takes a minimum of eighteen months to begin production and to have the first aircraft ready. To tool up for the production of aircraft, I am informed, costs anywhere from $5 million to $30 million, depending upon the extent of the operation. In the case of an existing plant with floor space and basic machinery it might cost $5 million, and $30 million or more where all the machine tools have to be acquired.
It should be remembered that to produce one of these F-86E aircraft it takes about 25,000 man hours, and in the case of the CF-100 probably 40,000 or 50,000 man hours. The time laid down for the production of the F-86E, as announced by me when we placed the order, was met by the manufacturer with the production of the first of this type last year. They are now building up production, but it will still be some time before the planned rate of production is reached.
The CF-100 is a new type which is being entirely designed and developed here with a Canadian engine. It will go into production at the planned rate a little later than the F-86E. We expect that the planned rate of production on the F-86E will be reached during the summer or autumn of this year, and on the CF-100 early next year. I should point out that the performance in the production of the F-86E was really quite remarkable. This is an aircraft designed in. the United States. All the plans and a good many of the parts had to come from the United States. Like every new bit of complicated equipment it was subject to modification, and sometimes as many as ten a day would be sent up by air mail, telephone or telegraph. Notwithstanding that, the aircraft was completed within a very short time of the completion of the first corresponding aircraft in the United States-less than two weeks. Since then they have been going ahead very well.
The hon. member then said he was glad to see co-ordination between the three services, and the appointment of a chairman of the chiefs of staff committee in the person of Lieutenant General Foulkes. He asked what his duties were. They are to act as chairman of the chiefs of staff committee, which consists of the chiefs of staff and such other persons as the minister may designate; to coordinate training and operations of the Canadian forces; to perform such other duties as may be assigned to him by the minister.
The hon. member said there appears to be duplication in the three services, and that the

Supply-National Defence only important branch unified is the dental branch. He asked why we have three medical, nursing and hospital services. We have looked into the question of unifying the medical services a good many times over the last four years, but so far have decided against it primarily because of the principles I mentioned yesterday in connection with the unification of the motor vehicle maintenance service. Everything possible has been done to eliminate duplication. For example, the navy has four hospitals, at Halifax, Cornwallis, Esquimalt and Dartmouth respectively, each of which looks after army and air force personnel. The army has eleven hospitals, and four in conjunction with the Department of Veterans Affairs. All these hospitals look after navy and air force personnel. The R.C.A.F. has nine hospitals, all of which look after navy and army personnel. None of the services has a hospital at a place where any other service has a hospital, so there is no duplication. No country in the world, so far as I know, has the medical services combined into one.
Such a combination would have some desirable features, perhaps, but on the other hand there would be a loss of direct association with the traditions and work of each particular service. We would soon have a joint medical service having specialists for the army, specialists for the navy, and specialists for the air force. The advantages of unification, therefore, would not be nearly as great as might be expected. Further, there would be administrative difficulties in deciding to which officer this neutral medical service would be responsible. Experience has shown it is necessary that a directorate be responsible to a single officer, not to a committee or to the minister. The only practicable way of doing that, in the light of experience, would appear to be to put the medical services of the navy and air force under the control of the largest user and the one having the greatest need under actual service conditions, the army; and that might not please the navy or the air force because they believe they have special functions, too. While the matter is continuing to receive very close attention, it has not yet been decided to do this job. I repeat to the hon. member and to the house that, so far as I know, this course has not been decided upon by any country.
The next question was: Is there duplication of supplies? The army provides stores and food for the air force and, to a considerable degree, for the navy. The rations are the same. The purchasing is all done through the Department of Defence Production and we do not see that there would be any elimination

of services or any economy effected through unifying the supply services. It would probably mean the setting up of a new overhead organization to look after the supply services of all three.


Mr. Coldwell:: May I say >to the minister that what prompted the question was my impression that the bill for printing for the services was rather high; I refer to the printing of papers.


Brooke Claxton: All the printing for the armed services is obtained through the king's printer, and he 'places the contracts.


Major James William Coldwell: I refer to stationery.


Brooke Claxton: I am afraid there is a good deal of paper work in connection with modern forces. We are trying to cut down on it; but the larger they get, the more paper work there is. It is like a telephone system; the larger it is, the more connections there are. I found recently that there were twenty-two forms required to document each recruit. I had an investigation made in an effort to cut down the number; and so far as I can make out, they feel now that they need one more. But seriously we are trying to cut down this work.
The hon. member stated that there is no common attestation form. The reason for that is that each of the three services-the navy, the army and the air force-feels that on attestation they require information peculiar to their particular service. Hence, in the light of their present attitude, to have a common form would mean having a bigger form so that you could cover all the ground in the navy, the army and the air force.
The army has lately instituted a completely new form of revolutionary design. It is designed to be a self-contained file. It has the carbon paper inserted. It has the recruit's medical report, enrolment, personnel selection report, oath and so on, all included. This is designed to expedite and simplify the work of enrolment. It is being used now for the first time in Canada; and the navy and the air force are watching with close interest to see if this is the right kind of form to have. We are therefore looking into the matter. We are also working on drawing up a uniform medical profile along the lines of the army pulhem, for all three services, so that any examining officer or personnel officer could examine men and code them for placement in the army, the navy or the air force according to their qualifications, physical, mental and so on. That is being done. It is a rather large undertaking, because in the three services there are no less than five

hundred or more separate classifications of jobs that have to be related one to the other; for instance, you have to find what is the air force equivalent in requirements for an engine room artificer, and so on. That work is being pressed on. So far as I know, it is greatly in advance of work being done anywhere else.
The hon. member referred to the size of the reserve force as shown in the statement at page 88 of the report of the department for the year ended March 31, 1950. The reserve force has been built up steadily since the war. During the last three years the increase as shown in the white paper-and I am speaking from recollection-would be 44 per cent. It is bigger now than it was in the period immediately following the second world war. We have tried every means suggested, I believe, except exemption from income tax and compulsory service, in order to expedite this build-up. We have had great co-operation. The fact that it should have increased by more than one-third has been, I say, most encouraging indeed. We hope that increase will continue.
But our aim during this period has not been to have a reserve force in the army that is trained and ready to fight a trained enemy. That is not yet part of the role of the reserve army of Canada; and I think that a great deal of misunderstanding occurs because of that misconception. What we want to do is to have the organization, the armouries, the equipment, the procedure, the regimental traditions, the officers, and so far as possible the N.C.O.'s, on which to build rapidly. The aim during this period has been to have 100 per cent of officers, about 75 per cent of N.C.O.'s and about 50 per cent of men. We have come close to achieving that aim with regard to officers and N.C.O.'s, and we are not far off with regard to men. While we want to see more men in the reserve force, and to give them every possible kind of encouragement and assistance, there is no ground for the kind of talk of despair and discouragement that we sometimes hear either in the House of Commons or in its committees. Relatively, our reserve army is in a better position, from the point of view of officer qualification, N.C.O. qualification, armouries and equipment, than it has ever been before; and I believe it is better off than the territorial army in England or the national guard in the United States-that is, on a comparative basis. I believe it would help in building up the reserve if we recognize, as I do every time I see them,-and I see them probably more than does any other hon.
Supply-National Defence member-the magnificent job they are doing, and give them every encouragement and every assistance.
The hon. member for Wetaskiwin said that he was told that Canadair could produce ten F-86E's a day, and he asked why we should not do it. We have made arrangements with the United States for the supply to us of all government-found property that is to go into the F-86E's that they can deliver to us, at a cost of approximately $175,000 per aircraft. I may say that the allocation at first made by them was only just over half what we persuaded them to give or to sell us today; and what they are providing today out of their own resources, because there is not enough of this special equipment-engines, instruments and the like-to go round. They are short of them. We are making, or we shall be making when we reach the planned rate of production, all the F-86E's for which there will be engines and other equipment available. The suggestion that we should produce ten a day is an interesting one, because I think hon. members should know about what it would cost. Ten a day would be, we estimate, about $4 million a day, of which $1,750,000 would be paid to the United States. That would mean a total of $1,200 million a year; and that would of course mean having to provide for the expenditure in some way or another, by doubling or tripling the present income tax or by some other means of that kind, which would have a most inflationary effect. That rate of production would be beyond the peacetime capacity of this country, and, indeed, beyond that of any country of comparable size. The planned rate of production is within our capacity and within the budget.
Then the hon. member said: We should have started our three-year program three years ago. We have had a three-year program ever since 1947, and each year we have revised it in the light of the progress made and of the international situation; so that it has been a steady development in accordance with lines laid down three and even four years ago, but with a great acceleration.
Then he said: There should be more diversification of defence installations. I think there he suggests we should have a greater spread across the country. I do not know of any government activity where there is greater diversification. For example, much the largest concentration of defence activity is in Nova Scotia. In 1950-51 in the maritimes alone, where there is 9-30 per cent of the population, 14-10 per cent of the defence dollar was spent. In the prairies, as I have informed the house, we are opening or

Supply-National Defence re-opening some eight major establishments, so that in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta we will be spending again a very considerable amount in proportion to the population.
Then the hon. member said: It is a crime that men serving in our armed forces and fighting for us should have to pay income tax. That is a question for the Minister of Finance, which he will deal with when he has material before the house if it is considered desirable; but I should point out that we in the Department of National Defence consider it very much fairer to have all personnel pay income tax. If they were relieved from income tax a major general would be relieved of a payment of $172.30 a month, whereas a first-class private would be relieved of a payment of $6.85 a month. We believe that the differentiation in responsibility between the private and the major general is correctly measured by the pay scales, and should not be further added to by exemption from income tax.


Major James William Coldwell: Why could not the ceiling on income tax exemption be that allowed to the private?


Brooke Claxton: It would affect your whole pay scale, which has been very carefully worked out. In the second world war it was found at one stage that it was possible that ten different men, each with a wife and two children, could be on a voyage from Halifax, Nova Scotia, to St. John's, Newfoundland, and these ten men would pay ten separate income taxes on the same rates of pay for doing equivalent work. It is exceedingly difficult to make exemptions and to make differentiations. At what stage would you start exempting the men? Would it be at Fort Lewis? Would it be at Tokyo? Would it be back in the line? Would it apply to the army service corps, to lines of communication, to the private in the front ranks?


Mr. Pearkes:: You have to decide that point in connection with 'the application of veterans benefits.


Brooke Claxton: It is a tough one, and so far the view of the government is this: it is a good principle that everyone should pay income tax, and that any differentiation in service or responsibility should be compensated for directly in pay which everyone can see.
The hon. member for Trinity-Conception asked if any other ships could be stationed in Newfoundland, and could there be more defence preparations there. The answer is that Newfoundland comes within the zone of Canada-United States defence plans, ties in with the over-all planning for defence of

both countries on the Atlantic coast, and future plans do envisage the stationing of additional ships in Newfoundland. But I point out that to do it at present would add greatly to the shore-based facilities needed in Newfoundland, and to the cost of operations, so that it is much better that ships exercising in the Atlantic should continue to be based at Halifax so long as the operations stay on their present scale.
The hon. member for Calgary East asked: How many fighter squadrons are ready for defence of. this country now? That is the kind of question we do not give answers to, but the number will increase very rapidly as the new aircraft are produced. At the present time we have fighters equipped with Vampires and Mustangs, which are both good operational aircraft, but not nearly up to the class of the F-86E and the CF-100. Just as soon as they are available they will be issued to equip squadrons that will be trained and ready to receive them. The build-up will come along together, and without giving any information about which there should be security, it is quite obvious from the size of operations that Canadair Limited or A. V. Roe Canada Limited by the end of this year will be producing enough aircraft of the F-86E or CF-100 type to equip a squadron every month, approximately. I should think that would be a fair estimate.
Then the hon. member said: We have airborne battalions, but they are not trained together, and we have not the transport to carry them. Well, they are trained together as battalions. They have been trained together with supporting arms as battalions, but not as a brigade group, and it is not considered at this stage that they would be employed as a brigade group. However, they will receive combined training so that they can fit into the larger formations if that action is needed. The hon. member said: We have not the transport to carry them. I suppose he is thinking in terms of something like the C-119 of the United States. Neither has any other country except the United States. Plans provide for our acquiring some of these aircraft later, but we believe that priority in respect of aircraft can be regarded as first, fighters, second, bombers-we are not going to have any strategic bombers- third, tactical fighters; fourth, transport-and that includes of course transport of troops. We have a sufficient number of equipped North Stars and Dakotas to make an airlift of the kind which at the present we would envisage as being required.
Then the hon. member referred to the fact that in a speech on February 5 there was only one sentence referring to the reserve

forces. I do not suppose that is a very-serious comment. Throughout the year I suppose I have spoken to a hundred or more audiences in support of the reserve forces, and visited every reserve force unit that I have had time to visit, so as to give them every possible support and assistance.
The hon. member expressed the view that my reports on the reserve forces were too optimistic. I believe in giving people encouragement and praise when they deserve it. And I think we have carried into effect every suggestion made by the defence association or by the individual associations or branches of the reserve forces, except that regarding conscription and exemption from income tax; and as I say I am all in favour of their being exempt from income tax. However, neither myself nor anyone else has been able to find a way which would enable the Minister of Finance and the government to do it without finding some new principle, without providing for a special class in a special way, without calling something which is income not income. If somebody can suggest a way in which that can be done, then I will certainly bring it to the attention of my colleagues.


Mr. Brooks:: How was it done in the last war?	'


Brooke Claxton: In the last war we had about twelve scales of income tax, depending on whom you were serving with, where you were serving, and what you were doing. Our practice now is to have just one scale of income tax applicable to everyone, wherever he is serving and whatever he is doing.
The hon. member said that anti-tank regiments have had their weapons taken away. It is quite true that some armoured regiments have had some of their weapons used in a different way. We have taken away some of the tanks on issue to units to put them in shape for shipment abroad, where they would be closer to the fighting line. But in every case we have replaced them either with equivalent weapons mounted on carriers, or towed twenty-five pounders, which has enabled the training in the army to be carried on. Training out in the field is still carried on with tanks, whether the training is local or at a central camp.
The hon. member said there is no information that equipment will be replaced soon by United States weapons. We have sent two divisions of equipment abroad. Our expectation is that delivery of the equipment to replace the first will begin within the next two weeks. In view of the general 80709-1841
Supply-National Defence situation in the world, that is an exceedingly good arrangement to make with the United States authorities.
The member said that the minister had made no statement as to how we are to replace equipment half of which we have disposed of. This is to be replaced from the United States or out of our own manufacture later.
He said that some of the United States equipment is not as good-the Bren gun as compared with the Browning, the twenty-five pounder as compared with the 105, and moreover, the cost is very much higher. That is a matter of opinion. You could not persuade an American of that fact. And, so far as one can see, from the advice I have received from my officials the difference in these weapons is very little.
He said that the adoption of uniform weapons would be of far greater advantage to the United States. There is the question of the Sten and the Thompson. Here, however, I think the hon. member is entering a field which is different, the field of hand-arms. So long as these weapons use the same ammunition

and I believe that is true of the Sten-it may be quite possible to keep the Sten, which is a much cheaper weapon, and not take the Thompson. That is receiving consideration.
The hon. member referred to overhead, with too many men not fighting, and the setup being top-heavy. As I have said, I think we have the lowest overhead of any of our partners outside the iron curtain, referring to operational troops in proportion to the total. And I believe that if a study is made on a comparable basis it will be found that our divisional slice is smaller than that of any comparable country. It seems to me that there may be a new principle we have discovered in this, and that is that the overhead goes up, not down, with the size of the force.
The hon. member for Yale said that the reserve force lacked funds, particularly for certain purposes, and that they were operating in cramped quarters and housed in school buildings. The -accommodation for the reserve army has been increased by over one hundred per cent in the last five years, and we are doing everything possible to continue this increase as rapidly as we can, having regard always to other requirements which are considered more urgent. As far as I can recall there has been no suggestion from representatives of the reserve force that their funds should be increased again. Substantial changes have been made over the last three years.
The hon. member said that the personnel are not receiving rehabilitation grants. There

Supply-National Defence was never any suggestion that the reserve force should receive rehabilitation grants.
I have never heard that suggestion from anyone.
The hon. member said we should remove the bottleneck preventing defence activities over the highway between Alberta and British Columbia, and the highway between Kamloops and Vancouver. I have made inquiries of the general staff and find that they do not regard these as urgent military requirements.
He said that we should develop airfields at Grand Forks, Kamloops, and other points. We are developing all the airfields we need at the present time, or that we can afford to have at this time, and we are establishing them in the places which in our opinion are best suited for air-training, namely in the prairie provinces, where we will have eight additional airfields in operation, as soon as the work can be done.
The hon. member referred to civil defence, a matter which comes under the supervision of my colleague the Minister of National Health and Welfare, who will speak about this at a later time.
The hon. member for Cape Breton South said there was no brigade training area or camp in the maritime provinces, and that there was too much centralization. I have answered the question about centralization as it applies to defence establishments. I can tell him that we are looking for an area in the maritime provinces which will be suitable for large-scale training. At present the only two in Canada are at Petawawa and Wainwright, and both of them have cold winters and a good deal of snow. If in the maritime provinces we could find an area of more than one hundred square miles of suitable ground, which could be acquired at no great cost and without displacing too many people, and also with no valuable standing timber on it, we should be glad indeed to consider it. We have had officers looking into this matter since 1946, but they have not yet found a suitable area.
Xhe hon. member referred to the question of men abroad not receiving dependents allowances. This was answered in the house on March 18, as reported at page 1373 of Hansard. We have tried to build up pay schedules by having pay rates which are equivalent to those in the eight leading industries of Canada, so that it will be unnecessary to have dependents allowances again. Should, however, the necessity become evident, that certainly must be considered.
The hon. member for Broadview said the reserve army should train as complete units. We believe that at the outset it is much
more useful for the reserve army to go to camp and do individual training or sub-unit training, having all their housekeeping looked after for them. In this way the days they spend in camp can be spent in intensive training in weapons. That has been the view since the second world war, and that procedure will be carried on. However, as units achieve a standard in individual training where they can profit from unit training, then I agree with him completely. I can see also the advantage in having the unit, from the administrative and traditional points of view, and from the point of view of morale. As we pass through this period of acquiring trained officers, trained N.C.O.'s and a nucleus of trained men, we will do more along the lines of his suggestion.
The hon, member suggested there should be danger pay up in the front line. This is something they have had in the United States but, I think, not in other forces. The Canadian government has always been opposed to it. I think Canada's armed forces have been opposed to it. However, we are doing something in that regard. We pay an additional allowance to men abroad of $9 a month for privates, $12 for sergeants, $15 for W.0.2's and $16.50 for W.O.l's. So far $47,000 has been paid in this way to the forces in Korea.
The hon. member for Vegreville asked if it would not be possible for us to take in other than British subjects. I should say that an amendment was passed on March 16, 1951, to K.R. Canada concerning the qualifications for enrolment which now read:
(a) be a Canadian citizen or other British subject; except that the minister may authorize the enrolment of a citizen of another country that is a party to the North Atlantic treaty if he is satisfied that the national interest would not be prejudiced thereby and if such enrolment is not prohibited by the law of such country.
As you can see, it is pretty restricted for security reasons. I must say that my military advisers are very strongly of the view that we should limit our armed forces to Canadian citizens or other British subjects. The same practice is followed in most countries. In Canada we are in a peculiar position in that we have a considerable proportion of our population of United States origin. They are just as loyal to the same causes as we are. We both move freely across the common border, and we thought it would be desirable to make some exception in their case, and other similar cases. After all, the twelve nations of the North Atlantic treaty are all in it together as partners, and we should accept each other's nationals in our services in so far as that can be safely done. I can tell the hon. member that that is the situation, If it

should be desirable to extend it, then we shall be very glad indeed to give the matter further consideration.
The hon. member for Three Rivers referred to the small number of French speaking officers in the three services. There is nothing I should like to see more than a larger proportion of officers of French origin in the three services. However, I do not agree that just because we do not have them we should promote men of any race who have not the required qualifications of experience, education or military bearing. It would be very desirable indeed if we could secure a larger proportion of men who were originally French speaking, and who would have the desire to make the service a career. At the present -time we are doing very well at Royal Military College and Royal Roads. Twenty-five per cent of the cadets are of French speaking origin, and a good proportion of those are making the services their career. That is fine, and we would like to see more of them. But there is a considerable handicap involved in the service of a French speaking officer in the armed forces due to the fact that it is quite impossible to keep him -and his family located in a community predominantly French and Catholic. When he moves away to secure promotion, to take a course or to take on some other job, then he is faced with the alternatives of either leaving his family behind in the community of relatives and friends who speak their tongue, or taking them with him to a community that may be predominantly Protestant and English.
I can mention cases that have come to my attention. In the course of promotion an officer with the rank of major in the army was transferred from the ordnance depot at Montreal east to a senior position at Calgary or Edmonton. He was faced with the necessity of taking his children from a French speaking Catholic school to an English speaking Catholic school, and his wife from the community of their friends to one where very few people spoke their language.


Douglas Scott Harkness: We speak French in Calgary.


Brooke Claxton: Not all of you. One can understand the difficulties. It is a real difficulty, but I can assure the hon. member who brought up the matter that it is one which has our complete and understanding sympathy, and that we are doing everything possible to overcome it. In opening R.M.C. a couple of years ago I referred to this question particularly, and perhaps I might read a passage from my speech. I said:
Since my appointment I have emphasized the importance of a knowledge of both English and French to all Canadians, but particularly those of
Supply-National Defence the armed forces. Obviously an officer possessing both languages has an advantage in exercising leadership and command, in getting along with his fellows in peace or war, in access to additional knowledge and in work as liaison officers, military attaches and the like. The knowledge of both languages is a positive military advantage. Accordingly, French and English are both compulsory subjects at both colleges for the first three years. That, however, is not enough. I urge staffs and cadets to see to it that by one means or another they learn to speak both languages fluently before the end of their course.
In point of fact, as to every promotion list that is put before me for consideration I ask the officer concerned, the chief of staff of the service or his representative, expressly if there is not a French-speaking officer within the range of qualifications who,, despite seniority, can be promoted. The fact: is that the gaps sometimes are too big to be bridged. For example, at the present time we have two brigadiers in. the army who are-very distinguished officers. They are both destined for high places. They have magnificent war records and are relatively young. One is eleventh and the other is twelfth in in the list of brigadiers. One has seventeen years' service and the other thirteen. To promote them to major generals at the present time would be unfair to them because they would reach the -age of retirement, through having achieved and- held the highest possible ranks, before they had acquired sufficient pension to justify their retirement. These officers are doing very good work indeed. One is at the imperial war college in London, having exercised command in Quebec. The other is the deputy chief of the general staff in Ottawa. One of them is destined to be in command in Montreal very shortly. But at present Major General Morton is in command in Montreal, and he speaks French, but one of these officers will be transferred there on General Morton's retirement. I am afraid we simply cannot run three services the size of ours if we do not see to it that we make the best of our racial and linguistic position. I regard it as a positive asset that we should have officers of both languages in all three services, and I should like to see more of them.
The hon. member also suggested that a military college should be established at Quebec city. That has been considered, and we do not exclude it at all. At present, however, the cost of the other two colleges is very considerable indeed, and we are most happy to have the proportion of twenty-five per cent French-speaking students mixed in with the English-speaking students at Kingston and Royal Roads. We hope it will have a good influence in making both groups better Canadians.

Supply-National Defence
The hon. member suggested that we should have ships manned exclusively with Frenchspeaking officers and men. That might be desirable if we had a very much larger navy, but with our navy, which has a present strength of about 14,000, it is not economically possible to do so, even if it were desirable; therefore I am afraid we cannot do it.
I think the only remaining suggestion made was that of the hon. member for Peel with respect to the St. Lawrence waterway. We regard this as a defence project of immense importance and would like to see it proceeded with, if possible jointly.


Mr. Sinclair:: I intend to speak very briefly, not so much on national defence as in order to correct a statement which, if permitted to go uncorrected, might have an effect on reserve recruiting. Yesterday afternoon I listened to most of the speech by the hon. member for Cape Breton South, but I was not in the chamber at the time he made this comment, which appears at page 2858 of Hansard:
That man has a job: he is in a certain income tax bracket. If he joins the reserve army he will be paid $20 or $25 a month, which must be added to his income. That puts him in another income tax bracket. At the end of the year, instead of the reserve army paying him something, he pays Mr. Abbott something. He really loses in the transaction: he has drilled for nothing, because the money is taken back in income tax.
I want to start by saying that the hon. member is generally pretty well informed on his subject matter, but when I am through I think he will agree that in this case he was in error. It is quite a common mistake in this country to presume that when you cross into another income tax bracket somehow or other you are in danger of losing net income. I want to say quite flatly, before I give some examples I have prepared, that under our income tax system it is impossible for any person to work for extra income and suffer a loss of net income. Our income tax tables are designed to avoid that.
I am going to take one or two very simple examples which would apply to men in the reserve army. As hon. members know, in Canada a single man gets an exemption of $1,000 and a married man with no children an exemption of $2,000 from income tax. On the first thousand dollars of income beyond that in both cases the rate is 15 per cent, and most of these young reservists will be in that income tax bracket. This extra $20 a month, if it does not take him into the next bracket, as normally it would not, will be subject to tax at the rate of 15 per cent, or 18 per cent with the new surtax. So he will pay exactly the same tax as he paid before on his basic income, and in addition he will pay 18 per cent on the $20 or $3.60 a month, leaving

him $16.40 tax free out of his additional earnings. That applies to both single and married men in the first income tax bracket. Let us suppose, whether he be single or married, he is right at the top of his bracket; that is a single man earning $2,000 or a married man earning $3,000, so the extra $20 a month he gets from the reserve army does carry him into the next bracket. In that bracket "the tax is 17 per cent, but payable not on his entire income but only on the next thousand dollars. So he pays exactly the same income tax on his ordinary income, and on the extra $20 he pays 17 per cent plus the 20 per cent surtax or a total of 20-4 per cent. Therefore he pays the same basic income tax on his other income as he paid before. On this extra income, this $20 a month, he pays $4.08, and has roughly $16 left tax free.
I will even go to the extreme case, to show how it is impossible for any person to work more and suffer a loss in net income. Take one of those few but happy individuals in the very top income tax bracket, over $400,000 a year. In this bracket the tax is 80 per cent. Suppose he joined the reserve army and was paid this extra $20 a month. He would continue to pay his ordinary tax on his basic income. On the extra $20 he would pay 80 per cent plus the new defence surtax, making 96 per cent, so he would still have 80 cents left over and above his former net income. Of course in that case he would hardly be joining because of the incentive of $20. That leads me to the other point, which is based upon a statement made recently by the deputy minister of national defence. The small material incentive which would be given by cancellation of income tax on this reserve pay is not sufficient to induce any extra recruiting, in the opinion of the deputy minister given just last week. Again I repeat, just to correct any misapprehension which might have gone abroad, that a recruit in the reserve army cannot possibly lose financially by joining up, no matter what his base income may be and no matter what brackets he may cross. Certainly in low brackets he will have the great bulk of his extra income left to him, in addition to his ordinary net income.
I do not intend to speak on the question of income tax on those in the armed services, because the Minister of National Defence has pointed out that the Minister of Finance will deal with that matter when the income tax resolutions are before the house. I have been reminded, however, that in the years before I was a parliamentary assistant I made a speech on this matter when I was just home from overseas, and it reads very much like the speech made by the hon. member for Broadview yesterday. I have not changed

my opinion very much on that matter. I think the proper way to pay for the extra hazard or danger of front line service is not by the remission of income tax but by extra combat pay. That was the American practice, and in my experience it was the British practice. In R.A.F. service in Libya we did get extra pay not only for the theatre of operations but also to make up for the fact that our living quarters and food certainly were not the same as those of the soldier back at base or in Canada. I suggest that the proper attack to be made on this problem is not by suggesting the remission of tax. The Minister of National Defence put his finger squarely on the issue. When you talk about the remission of income tax for those in the armed services it is not the private you are going to help; it is the high ranking officer. If the difference in what the private soldier would pay in income tax were regarded as the base for combat pay, I suggest that combat pay would be a very small item indeed. However, that point will be dealt with by the Minister of Finance when the budget resolutions are considered. All I want to do is emphasize that under our taxation system it is impossible for anyone, soldier or worker, who chooses to work extra hours to earn extra income to be left as a consequence with less net income. He cannot help but gain if he works more.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I was very interested in what the parliamentary assistant just said with regard to combat pay and related subjects. I had not intended to deal with that in my remarks this afternoon, but since the hon. member has raised the question I just want to say that like him and probably every other member here who had the privilege of serving in either of the two wars, I think the feeling is universal that the proper man to receive trades pay or extra pay, if extra pay is to be given for extra service, is the man who carries the rifle, the man who operates the gun in the aircraft, or who mans the gun on the fighting ship.
I know this is a difficult subject, but by the very nature of things skilled tradesmen- probably not from their own choice-have to work under conditions and circumstances where they are not near the actual battle front. As a result trades pay is much more prevalent in rear areas and workshop areas. I do not deny there is danger in some of those areas, but as a rule trades pay is more concentrated in areas where the danger is not great than in danger areas, where there is little trades pay. I certainly feel this subject is one that requires careful consideration. Now that our troops are once more in actual
Supply-National Defence battle, I think we might give some consideration to whether the trained rifleman should not receive some form of trades pay. I should think it would be possible to work out some scheme under which a man who qualifies to meet certain tests as a first-class infantryman with a rifle battalion, and similarly in the other services, should receive something in recognition of that fact. If it is right to give trades pay to a man who is trained to maintain vehicles, I think we might consider whether we should not also give trades pay to men trained in maintaining their profession as fighting soldiers.
It is quite obvious from thte discussion that has gone on so far that all parties in the house are in agreement on the need for an expanded and accelerated national defence program. But the agreement on goals need not, and in my view should not, preclude honest disagreement on methods and interim objectives. No one denies that all the free nations are in peril of momentary Russian aggression. No one in this house denies the necessity for the enlarged defence program, and the raising of additional forces recently outlined by the minister. It is not correct to say, however, that to question either the adequacy of the over-all program or the efficacy of the methods being followed is in any way to impede the war effort. Such an argument I reject absolutely. What is needed is a measured examination of the whole program as announced, to see if it is adequate to meet the peril, and to see whether the methods being followed will, in fact, enable accomplishment of the program laid down by the government. If we believe there are doubts on either score, we must say so. National defence is too serious to fool around with. Personally, I have doubts on both scores.
First, as to whether the program announced by the government is adequate to meet the requirements of the situation: I intend to make no criticism at this time of the extent of the commitments presently laid down by the government which may be generally summarized as being, in the army, two brigades for overseas-one in Korea and one for Europe-and one airborne brigade for home defence; for the air force, forty operational squadrons, of which eleven are destined for Europe; in the navy, a general force of one hundred active ships. Whether or not that figure is intended to be one hundred fighting ships, I have not yet been able to gather from the minister's statements. If there were one hundred fighting ships, then we are obviously going to have many more ships than that in service in the navy, but the only figure it is safe to mention at this

Supply-National Defence time is the one hundred ships in commission in the navy when our objective is reached.
I fear that it will not be possible adequately to fulfil and maintain these commitments within the limitations -now governing our forces, that is the limitation of 115,000 service personnel by 1954. I believe it will be found either that the commitment must be reduced or the number of personnel increased, or we shall run the danger once again of inadequate support for our forces when they are engaged in operations.
Before stating my reasons in detail for this criticism, I think it is interesting to take a general look at our military commitments in terms of those of other countries, particularly of the United States. As I said, at this time I am making no -criticism of the size and the extent of our commitment. But I think it does help us to keep a sense of perspective when we are discussing national defence just to look at the extent of the commitment of our ally. I realize also it is not strictly accurate to say, because another country has a population ten times that of our own, that we should necessarily, therefore, be able to put forth an exactly proportionate war effort, that is one-tenth of theirs, because there are many other factors which intervene. But when we are comparing population figures, it does seem to me it is an indication of the proportional effor of the two countries.
When we are considering this matter then, we find that the United States, with a population approximately ten times that of Canada, has as its goal of serving personnel in the armed forces-I understand that is what we would call active forces and does not include the national guard-3,500,000 men. According to my understanding they expect to reach that goal this year. Our active service personnel on a strictly proportionate basis would be one-tenth of that number or 350,000. Now, I have said that a strictly proportional relationship may not be possible because the United States has admittedly a more developed economy, but in terms of serving personnel it is an indication. We must bear in mind the fact that our goal is 115,000 service personnel by 1954; that is, our target is something less than one-third of what it would be if we were to achieve a goal on a basis exactly proportionate to that of the United States. And that in three years' time.
Then, Mr. Chairman, for the purpose of a detailed consideration of whether we can meet our commitments within the target strength of 115,000 service personnel, it is interesting to compare our effort and

strength in the last war with our announced commitments and proposed strength under the present program. If you will remember, Mr. Chairman, during the recent war Canada had five divisions in the field as a fighting force, three infantry divisions, two armoured divisions and two independent armoured brigades. Taking the equivalent of three brigades per division, that is either infantry or armoured brigades, and the equivalent of a brigade of artillery, one might say roughly that you had four brigades per division or that five divisions would give you the equivalent of twenty brigades plus the two armoured brigades which would make twenty-two. In making this comparison, I think it is only proper to bear in mind, of course, that there were reconnaissance regiments, as well as corps troops, who actually did fight although they were not included in any of the divisions or independent brigades.
I believe it would be a fairly generous estimate, and would form a fair basis of comparison, instead of taking twenty-two, the strict mathematical computation, to say we had the equivalent of thirty brigades within our five divisions and two independent brigades when we include reconnaissance, corps -and army fighting troops. During the war of 1939-1945 to maintain a fighting force equal to thirty brigades took 495,804 men. Then three brigades, which is our present commitment, on the same basis would take approximately 49,580 men to maintain them. That figure of 49,580 would mean that the army alone would require a strength of nearly half the total planned strength of 115,000 which is to cover all three services.
Actually there has been an announcement that it is the intention of the government, with respect to the brigade for Europe, to rotate that brigade on -a basis which the minister outlined. You cannot, therefore, just look for a brigade for Europe. Leaving out altogether the necessity of reinforcing either the brigade for Korea or the brigade for Europe, should hostilities occur there, we are committed to that rotation of the force. I believe I am correct in saying that at no time during the last war were we ever committed to a policy of complete rotation of service personnel. Since we are going to have to rotate the brigade in Europe, it would automatically follow that in fairness some provision will have to be made for rotating -the brigade in Korea. You cannot, therefore, just take a figure of three brigades. It seems to me you have to take a figure of

more like five brigades which we shall have to be able to maintain on the basis of the commitment the minister has laid down.
On a comparative basis-and although this I admit is not strictly accurate nevertheless it forms a basis on which to judge-taking the figures as to what it took to maintain that number of brigades during the 1939-45 war, to maintain five brigades or their equivalent at this time would take approximately 80,000 men. That is, I repeat, for the army alone.
When we come to the air force, a similar comparison is even more startling. It has been announced that our program calls for 40 squadrons. During the last war, at its peak, according to official figures which I have been given, the air force had the equivalent of 78 operational squadrons. That figure was reached in 1943. At that time, again according to the official figures, the air force's maximum strength was 209,803. Here, of course, comparisons are perhaps even more difficult to make; but I think that a comparison should be made for the purpose of discussion.
During the last war we had a number of bomber squadrons. I understand that we are to have no heavy bomber squadrons under the program now envisaged, so that one would have to make adjustments for that differential, as a bomber squadron takes a much higher proportion of men than does a fighter squadron. The official air force figures show however that even with the bomber squadrons overseas only approximately one-third of the air force personnel overseas was engaged in bomber activities. We therefore do not need to weight the comparison too heavily as a result of the fact that this time we eliminate the bomber squadrons. On the basis of a straight mathematical comparison, if there were 78 squadrons at the peak of strength, and a total of 209,800 men to maintain that number of squadrons, therefore 40 squadrons-again on a straight mathematical basis-can be said to need 117,000 men. That is for the air force alone.
Let us for the purpose of argument make a heavy cut because there are to be no bomber squadrons under the program that is now envisaged. Suppose you want to take a third off that figure. That still leaves between
75,000	and 80,000 which might be considered as being required to maintain that 40 squadrons, unless we are to say that the use of manpower during the last war was excessively prodigal. There are, of course, other reasons why the comparison must be carefully made. We are going to have only 11
Supply-National Defence squadrons overseas at this time, whereas a large portion of our effort last time was in Europe.
But, Mr. Chairman, we are committed to keeping 11 squadrons in Europe under this program, and again, since the intention has been announced of rotating army personnel in Europe, I can only presume that, in fairness, the same intention would apply with respect to air force personnel. You are therefore committed to an 11-squadron force in Europe on a rotation basis; so that even if it is necessary to be extremely careful in making your comparison between these figures and the figures of the last war, because of the absence this time of a bomber effort, nevertheless your figures are weighted back again because you are committed to maintaining a substantial part of your force in Europe on a rotational basis.
Taking then the mathematical calculations alone, one would have a figure of some
190,000	men for the army and the air force, on a comparative basis. Giving it then all the care and the weight which must be attached to the fact that our effort is not as all-out at the present time as it was in wartime, nevertheless I think it is quite safe to say that the ceiling of 115,000, if it is not going to be exceeded-and I would certainly think that it will have to be exceeded-would certainly have to be stretched to the limit to maintain the commitments to the extent outlined for the army and air force alone; and the figures that I have given take no account of our naval effort.
In this connection I think we should also consider the physical problem of actual reinforcements. We have to bear in mind the fact that our men are fighting a war in Korea. For international political purposes it may be called police action or it may be called the restraint of aggression. It makes no difference what political name we give to it; to the men on the spot it is a war; and by anyone dealing with the problem of maintaining that force and reinforcing that brigade, it must be dealt with on the basis of a war. One is therefore surely entitled to look, and should do so, at the figures of the last war for some basis of comparison. Official figures for a comparable theatre can be found in the figures of casualties during the Italian campaign during the last war. I think that Italy would be a more comparable theatre than northwest Europe because of the factors of disease and so on, which would be more nearly similar in the case of Italy and Korea than they would be in the case of northwest Europe and Korea.
2888	HOUSE OF
Supply-National Defence
The figure for our non-battle casualties for the Canadian component of the allied army in Italy for one year, namely 1944-and I point out that these are non-battle casualties alone-was 38,973. The approximate average monthly strength of the Canadian component was 72,000. So that of the total average strength in the theatre for a year, one-half were non-battle casualties. The rate of casualties of all types-that is, battle as well as non-battle casualties-was 61 per 1,000 per month which, it would seem to me, means a figure of 720 over a 12-month period. With the casualty figures being worked out on this basis, and that is the only way we can arrive at it, it would seem that 720 or seven-tenths would be casualties, either battle or nonbattle, in the course of a 12-month period. The provision for reinforcements must surely be based on the anticipated casualty rate, which must take in casualties from all sources and when you look at the figures for the last war, you can see that the problem of reinforcing the Korean brigade is a heavy one indeed, when you realize that in Italy the non-battle casualties for a year amounted to a total of one-half of the total actual strength in the theatre.
In this connection there is an interesting statement by Brigadier Rockingham, commander of the Canadian brigade in Korea, as reported in a Canadian Press dispatch which appeared in the Montreal Gazette of April 19. It is dated Fort Lewis, Washington, April 18 and reads in part as follows:
Brig. John Rockingham said today Canadian casualties in Korea likely will be higher than they were in Italy and Normandy.
He told a press conference on the eve of the 6,000-man force's departure from nearby Seattle for Korea that if a commonwealth division is formed in Korea, Canada might have to send additional troops to that war theatre.
When one bears in mind the reports that you have, Mr. Chairman, as to what I might call generally sanitary conditions in Korea,
I think it is highly likely that what Brigadier Rockingham said will be realized, taking into account the non-battle casualties alone; and, these, as the figures I have placed on the record will show, are equal to, if not greater than, the battle casualties, but they have just as great an effect from the point of view of wastage of forces. If then approximately half the average strength in Italy were nonbattle casualties during the course of a year, and if with battle casualties included your average rate was 61 per thousand per month for Italy, and with the likelihood that it will be higher in Korea, then I suggest these figures show that we need to take a second look at the manpower problem confronting
CMr. Fulton.]

this country in the light of the present program outlined by the government and the commitments which we have accepted.
We cannot afford to say to ourselves: "Let us not get excited, because this is peacetime; we cannot put forth an all-out effort." I am convinced, Mr. Chairman, that we shall be doing a disservice to the country, a disservice to the men who are fighting in the forces now, and a disservice to those whom we are asking to volunteer if we do not face these facts and have a full and frank discussion of the implication of these facts, and we shall be horribly guilty if we ever again run even the risk of a situation arising where men are committed to battle and we suddenly find we have not got the resources, nor have we planned and prepared to have the resources in manpower immediately available adequately to maintain these troops, we simply cannot take that risk, because men are now fighting and dying in Korea. Also bear in mind this, which I will refer to again in a few moments -we are asking men to enlist to go to Europe. There is no fighting in Europe at the moment, but these men will have to be ready to meet an enemy, and a fully trained enemy, at any moment. That is why they are being sent there. This house is not entitled to regard the recruiting of a brigade for Europe as merely another aspect of a peacetime army. That brigade is being trained and raised to send to Europe to take its place in the line with our allies in the North Atlantic organization, ready to resist aggression at a moment's notice-<and a moment's notice is all they will have if the Russians should ever make the fatal decision to start the next world war.
When we look at our figures of recruiting I do not think we can find there a basis which would even entitle us to agree with the minister that the recruiting figures show that his program of 115,000 men in the three forces will be completed in a year and a half. The minister drew that conclusion from the figures of recruiting at the present time. It seems to me they show it would take over two years at the best, because although it is true enough that during January, February, March and April the average increase in the three services was over 2,000 a month, it is significant to note that during the month of April the intake was substantially less than it was during the previous month. It is also significant to note that it was higher in January, less in February and it was less again in March. The net intake for April, or an estimate of it, was given by the minister in his statement on May 8, and we find that the estimated over-all increase for that month was still less than it was the previous month.

Let us look at the trend. In January the net increase of the three services was 2,642. For February it was 2,173; for March it was 2,075. Does the minister remember what the figure for April was?


Brooke Claxton: It was 1,934.


Edmund Davie Fulton: For April the estimated
increase was 1,934. Therefore the figures show a steady decline during the first four months. I realize that does not take into account the increase which will certainly be shown as a result of the announcement of the drive to recruit a special brigade for Europe, but the over-all trend was down steadily. That, Mr. Chairman, is a trend that will have to be reckoned with. That of course is the normal trend with respect to recruiting in the forces; that the winter months are the high months. Then, as we get toward the summer, they decrease, and particularly in the case of this country we must accept that, with the competing claims of industrial defence production, and particularly as that program is stepped up, there will be a tendency toward a greater increase in the downward trend of the recruiting figure.
Even if we take it that the average of
2,000	a month will be maintained, which seems to me to be making an estimate at a higher figure than the circumstances justify, when the minister made his announcement on February 5 we had 50,000 personnel to raise for the three services in order to achieve the program'-fifty thousand at the rate of 2,000 a month. Even if that rate were maintained it would thus take 25 months to reach the objective, or just over two years. Therefore I cannot see that the figures, as they are at the present time, justify the minister's anticipation that the program will be completed in a year and a half.
Furthermore, when one looks at the experience of the Korean brigade, which shows that approximately something over 10 per cent of the new recruitment had to be discharged or released even before the brigade ever left the continent, it certainly shows that the present recruiting policy and the policy of suddenly rushing into recruiting drives and putting pressure on is not an efficient one, is not the way in which any country should approach this problem of raising forces, because it is unscientific and' unsafe, because it is inefficient and expensive.
All this, Mr. Chairman, leads me to the conclusion that we need to take a second look at our manpower policy. I certainly wish to support the suggestion that has been made in this debate by one or two speakers
Supply-National Defence who preceded me, namely, that we need right now a national registration put into effect in this country.
The minister has said that we have a three-year program, but he himself has admitted that it does not rest with us to determine whether we shall have three years to complete that program. It rests with the Russians, who are the only potential aggressors. The implications as to whether or not we are going to be able to fulfil our commitments within the present limitation of
115,000	for the forces-I have dealt with the implications inherent in that problem-the implications inherent in the question of reinforcements and the rate of casualties in Korea, the implications inherent in the necessity to rotate the brigades in Europe and Korea, and the eleven squadrons of air force in Europe, plus the implications inherent in the tremendously high proportion of discharges from the Korean force, even before they left this country, particularly when this is reinforced by the fact and sober realization that we may not have three years, but may have only three months or less- all these implications, it seems to me, point inescapably to the conclusion that we must prepare now to meet the worst. And the only way we can prepare to meet the worst is by having a survey of our manpower, by national registration, and by preparation now to put into effect those measures to raise the forces which I believe may be necessary even without an act of aggression by Russia, but which will certainly become necessary the moment Russia commits an act of aggression,
Mr. Chairman, my own view as to the only proper, the fair and the safe way in which to raise a force to go into battle has been expressed already, and I think it does not need amplification. I am now trying to approach the problem within the limitations of the program laid down by the government, and trying to show that within the limitations of their own program it is necessary for them to take a second look at the whole problem.
I think that can be seen in a clearer light when we examine the methods now being followed to raise the brigade for Europe. In my view the wrong method of recruiting is being followed. I do not consider it fair to ask men to volunteer to discharge a national duty. I do not consider it fair, nor do I consider it safe or efficient. And I press this again, particularly in view of the fact that these men are asked to go to Europe to take their places in the line, where they may be called upon to meet a highly trained and ruthless enemy at any time.
2890	HOUSE OF
Supply-National Defence
I have already referred to the example of the inefficiency which was necessarily inherent in the sudden, rushed and unscientific recruitment for the Korean brigade. Let me make it perfectly clear that I believe absolutely, and I am happy to believe, that the Korean brigade as it finally sailed for Korea was among the most efficient and most splendid, if not the most efficient and splendid that had ever been raised in this country- but at what a tremendous cost, in the matter of weeding out men who should never have been allowed to join it in the first place, as the result of a haphazard program of recruitment!
As I have said, these men are being asked to face the possibility of imminent war in Europe. I do not consider the method being followed of raising the brigade is the fair, the safe or the efficient way. Then, apart from that question, there are one or two other features of the present method of recruiting the brigade for Europe which, I suggest, should be examined. I realize it was extremely difficult to find a satisfactory compromise between the various factors the minister outlined for us when he announced the method to be followed in recruiting that brigade, having as a basis the reserve units across the country. He said we had to have a compromise between choosing three main units only and getting proper geographic representation. Those were among the factors considered.
The decision was arrived at to raise three battalions, one of which would1 be a highland battalion, one a straight infantry battalion and one a rifle battalion, and to give fifteen various reserve units the opportunity to recruit men for that brigade. As I understood the minister's statement, one of the advantages which were to flow from this method was the preservation of the regimental spirit-an objective with which I agree one hundred per cent.
But I think we should consider seriously whether in fact the method being followed will not actually defeat the objective. I wonder if it is going to be possible, when we have five different companies in a battalion wearing, as I understand they will wear, different regimental insignia. That is to say, a company of the Canadian Highland Regiment recruited by the Seaforth Highlanders would wear insignia different from a company recruited from the Canadian Scottish-that was my understanding, and I would ask the minister to correct me if I am wrong.


Brooke Claxton: Shoulder badges.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Different shoulder badges-it
does seem to me it will be very difficult


when there are companies within a unit competing, as it were, on the basis of prior regimental affiliations, to build up a unit spirit, such as our whole Canadian army tradition has shown is so important and counts for so much in the winning of battles. Because not only will companies now have that proper spirit of competition and rivalry based upon a competitive spirit as between, let us say, A company and B company, but there will be the other aspect introduced when it will be pointed' out that A company used to be a company of Seaforth Highlanders whereas B company was Canadian Scottish.
Then there is the problem of transferring from one company to another within the same unit. The person involved would have to take down one set of shoulder flashes and put up another. It seems to me this would create a situation wherein the unit commander would find it exceedingly difficult to build up a proper unit spirit.
Then in addition we have the condition the minister outlined whereby other reserve force units will be asked to recruit reinforcement companies for the brigade, thus, as I understood him, further achieving the desired objective of maintaining the unit spirit and the regimental tradition. Again I believe the practice will defeat the objective. Because it seems to me that with a company of reinforcements raised by a battalion which is not a component company of the initial battalion of the brigade, and presumably wearing the shoulder flashes and the regimental insignia of their own unit during the time of their formation, coming into the battalion of the brigade and having to join companies with shoulder flashes different from that of the parent battalion of the reinforcement company, chaos and confusion would result, as well as a distinct feeling of let-down by the men, when they came in as members of X regiment and were then sent to one of the companies of the particular regiment and had to put up some other type of insignia.


The Chairman:: The hon. member has
exhausted his time.


Edmund Davie Fulton: It seems to me that this problem may well create a situation where the unit commander may find he cannot allow this form of affiliation to exist, and he may have to say, "You will now regard yourselves as members of the first Canadian infantry battalion".-the first "Canadian infantry battalion" we have had in the history of the Canadian army. So that the very thing you are trying to preserve, under the system which has been adopted, may make it essential to disregard and to discard all unit

affiliations, and we may thus be defeating that which we are trying to preserve.


Mr. George:: Mr. Chairman, I shall confine my remarks to the reserve army, with which I am more familiar. First of all I should like to relieve the minister of his worries about camp sites. I am sure we have two excellent camp sites in my riding, and I would ask him to come and look them over some time. The reserve army has certain and distinct roles. They are not the roles that seem to be in the minds of most speakers today. The first is aid to civil power. The second is to have all their officers, W.O.'s, and N.C.O.'s fully trained, together with as many men as their equipment and facilities will allow them to handle, and to have them as fully trained as possible. The third role is for use and availability in case of a national emergency. The role of the reserve army is not that of occupational troops.
Let us deal with these points in order. The reserve army has been called out in the past to aid the civil power, and their work has been very effective. This is one of the roles that we all dislike, and fortunately very few of us have been called upon to perform such service. Briefly, to call out the reserve army as aid to civil power, the attorney general of the province concerned must make application to the federal government for the necessary troops. If authority is granted the troops are called out and the cost is paid by the province concerned.
The second role is the one with which most of us are fully acquainted. It is to have 100 per cent strength of officers and N.C.O.'s and from 50 to 100 per cent of other ranks as fully trained as possible. Many units have all their officers, W.O.'s and N.C.O.'s fully trained. That is the case in my own unit, the 8th Princess Louise's (N.B.) Hussars, which I have the honour to command. We are up to strength in officers and N.C.O.'s, and they are trained. We have a strength of around 650 all ranks although the other ranks are not all fully trained. About 30 per cent of the war establishment, in other words, 30 per cent of our total strength, are qualified.
The percentage of qualified personnel in units depends entirely on the type of unit to which they belong. In an armoured regiment, for instance, 75 per cent of the personnel are tradesmen. We find that it takes a minimum of three years to train these tradesmen. This tends to keep down our percentage of trade personnel compared, for instance, with an infantry regiment which has a lower percentage of tradesmen. These reserve units are to be available in case of war. They are
Supply-National Defence not to go immediately into battle, but to be mobilized, fully trained and equipped within a reasonable time to take part in the defence of this country, whether it be in Canada or on foreign soil.
In cases of national emergency such as the Winnipeg flood last year, certain units of the reserve army were called out, and they did an excellent job. As I said before, the role of the reserve army is not occupation, and it could not be expected that reserve units should be sent to Europe or other foreign countries purely in anticipation of hostilities breaking out. We have not considered that one of the roles of the reserve army should be that of supplying personnel to what we know as permanent force units. That does not apply to the special or 27th brigade. Reserve army personnel are all employed in civilian occupations, and they do their training on holidays, week ends and in the evenings. Any move to mobilize complete units, except in the case of a national emergency, could be disastrous not only to industry but to the units themselves. However, I am sure that if any of the reserve army units were asked to mobilize today they would do so.
The minister's announcement of last Friday that the brigade for Europe was to be raised from and by the reserve units is in my opinion a fine idea and will ensure sufficient personnel being enlisted. Reserve army units will take pride in having sub-units in other larger formations wearing their badges, flashes, ties, and so on. The raising of the brigade by this method will not disrunt industry, and it makes the reserve army feel that at long last they are considered part of the defence forces of this country.
It has been said in this debate that the enlisting of personnel from and by the reserve army will weaken the reserve units. This no doubt is true in part. However, when the special brigade for Korea was being mobilized some time ago something over sixty of our personnel enlisted in the special force. In addition, we supplied a complete troop including tradesmen to the R.C.D.'s. This actually did cut down our strength and reduced the number of our tradesmen, but the unit was recruited back to its former strength and by putting on a number of courses ourselves we qualified more tradesmen than we have ever had before. In fact we now have 132 qualified tradesmen trade tested by an active force trades test board and drawing trades pay.
Some of these men are enlisting. The training which the reserve army has given them will mean that they enter the active force

Supply-National Defence drawing trades pay, and the country will reap the benefit of the training they received and the money spent on them. While it reduces the number of our tradesmen we are very proud that they are doing so. We do not feel that we are being weakened by supplying recruits for the brigade. Actually we feel that it is a challenge to the reserve army to supply these men and then to get busy and replace them.
It has been said, and rightly so, that there are no poor units in the army; there are only poor officers. I have attended many conferences and meetings where reserve army officers deplored what they thought were the conditions in Canada with respect to the reserve army. If the officers are not prepared to back the idea of the reserve army, then they cannot expect their troops to be enthusiastic. I feel that the success of my own unit was due entirely to the enthusiasm of the late commanding officer, and this enthusiasm was contagious to such an extent that not only the officers but all ranks had it. So many people feel that the government and the country owe them a living, and I am afraid that has been the attitude of many in the reserve army. They felt that the government should introduce compulsory military service and thus relieve them of the additional work and initiative which would be required to build up their own units. I feel this situation will disappear pretty well as a result of the government's move to recruit from the reserve army, and in putting the responsibility on the reserve army to supply the troops. The hon. member for Broadview spoke yesterday, and at page 2860 of Hansard he is reported as having said:
From my observations, I would say that the great majority of reserve units would not, on an average, parade more than 25 per cent of their authorized strength, and a large part of the numbers on parade are made up by the band.
I am sure the hon. member appreciates the problems of the reserve army because he is a part of it. I did not feel, however, that a general statement like that should be allowed to go unchallenged. It gives a false impression to the general public, and as a result of such statements the general public tends not to hold the reserve army in too high repute. In the first place, the relationship between the number of men on strength and the authorized war establishment is not important. The important factor is what percentage of the men on strength turn out. How many non-effectives has a unit? Unfortunately we have all had too many, but we are gradually getting rid of them.
This afternoon the minister said, and I would repeat, that it is not necessarily the
[Mr. George.l

idea of the reserve army to be up to strength I would like to give one instance, and, I hope the committee will bear with me if I refer to my own unit, because after all it is the only one I know. I inherited it; it must go on, and it is going on. Three weeks ago I went down to attend a church parade. My unit is spread out over a radius of eighty-five miles. For that church parade we brought them in to the number of over two hundred, plus the band; and I am sure the hon. member for Broadview did not mean to imply that bands were not important parts of the units.
Tradition, as we all know, is one of the things that contribute to a good unit. All reserve army regiments in Canada have a long history of which they are proud, but I am sure that some of our traditions should go by the board; some being carried on today are ridiculous. On the other hand we have some good traditions which should be retained. I feel that we should make new traditions, after careful thought, and carry them on. These traditions revolve around the badges, colours, battle honours, mascots and many other things. To those interested in reading about tradition and how it is affecting units I would recommend the May issue of Mayfair. On page 43 appears an article' by Allister Grosarti entitled "All regiments of the reserve are uneasy." Mr. Grosart has written a very good article on the history and traditions of reserve army regiments, and he sums it up by suggesting that one of the greatest mistakes we could make would be to adopt the United States system of numbering regiments. Some of us remember the way armoured corps regiments were numbered during the war. I remember very well when it happened, and it caused more dissatisfaction than any other single thing I can remember. Today we have reverted to our own names, and have dropped the numbers. It was with great satisfaction that I learned the Minister of National Defence had denied rumours that regiments were to be numbered, and said they would continue with their traditional names.
We all appreciated the tribute paid by the hon. member for Nanaimo to the Gloucestershire regiment. Our own regiments have their traditions, but those of the Gloucestershire regiment go back much further. I came across an article dealing with the traditions of that regiment, which had this to say:
The battalion was surrounded for three days and nights, stubbornly fought off the enemy from all directions, and finally the remnants cut their way out. It is an inspiring story, but most interesting is the point that the Glo'sters have done it before, 150 years ago.

That incident occurred on March 21, 1801, at Alexandria, when Napoleon was making his bid to conquer the east and the British were stopping him. I need not go into detail except to say that the Glo'sters were surrounded at that time also; and ever since they have had the privilege, unique in the world, of wearing two badges on their headdress, one in the front and the other at the back. I contend that tradition is a wonderful thing and is one of the ties that help to bind a good unit together.
There has been some criticism that the reserve army has not had sufficient equipment with which to train. As the hon. member for Nanaimo so well said the other day, no good officer ever has enough equipment, men and material with which to train or fight. Most reserve units have sufficient equipment. In the case of my own regiment there is nothing we need in the way of training equipment, neither do we lack accommodation or training areas. Perhaps we are more fortunate than many others, but even those units without sufficient accommodation have been able to carry on. All equipment and accommodation is useless without enthusiasm to make it work. I was surprised to hear the criticism yesterday that we have no tanks with which to train personnel. It is quite true that we have not the latest tanks coming off United States assembly lines, but the Sherman tanks we have were the best on the allied side at the end of the war; and like machine guns, if you learn one tank you learn them all. After that it is just a matter of a short course, and your men can go right on with them. So I do not believe this criticism is well founded.
It has been suggested also that reserve army regiments should train as units. This is practically impossible when there are a great many tradesmen in the unit. Like most reserve units, we like the school system we have been working under for the last three years. Units go to a camp such as Petawawa and everyone from the colonel down is put on a course. We have no housekeeping duties, and everyone goes home better trained. There is sufficient authority for special courses and exercises so commanders may exercise their units and get their administrative people into their jobs any time they wish to do so.
One of the mistakes that have been made in the reserve army, and we also made it, was recruiting numbers instead of quality. A large nominal roll does not in any way indicate a good unit. We found that by getting good types of soldiers we increased our efficiency and were able to qualify more tradesmen, and at the same time we built up
Supply-National Defence a better reputation. The reserve army has the big job of selling public relations, and that is important. Troops who do not behave give us a bad reputation, but fortunately such cases have been rare.
The reserve army has a few problems, too; everything is not perfect. I do not think it would be wrong for me to bring some of those problems to the attention of the house. Between the wars we bad what was known as the transportation grant, which worked out in this way. A soldier was allowed to bring his car to local headquarters training and receive mileage for it, provided he brought three or four other troops with him. In other words every man who had a car assisted in recruiting and in having a good turnout for parades. This was discontinued in 1946; today we have to use army vehicles to transport troops. These vehicles are not sufficiently winterized to be comfortable, and I sometimes wonder why the troops continue to ride in them in cold weather. Then in rural areas like ours it is too expensive to send a large truck a long distance for perhaps two men. I feel that we should have mass transportation by army vehicles and local transportation for local headquarters training mostly by private cars. I believe one of the most important things the department could do for the reserve army would be to restore this transportation grant. The reason given for taking it away was the increase in pay we were given at that time. I fail to see how the increase in pay was related to the transportation grant, unless it was in the over-all cost of the reserve army.
I agree with the statement by the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Finance with respect to income tax and danger pay. I need not repeat it, because I think the hon. gentleman put it very well; and I believe that is the best solution that has been advanced so far. Today all units in Canada are having trouble finding sufficient pay for the handful of people who run them. We are allowed sixty days' training time, forty-five days at local headquarters and the remainder at summer camp. In addition there are special training exercises for which authority may be granted, and also ten days' administration pay.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I am sure that no one wants to tie a dollar sign to the reserve army. Money cannot buy a reserve army. It cannot buy the loyalty, initiative or anything else it takes to make a reserve army. However, I do feel that personnel should not be asked to train and work without receiving pay for the time spent. Unfortunately, we have to talk about money in these days. Instead of turning

Supply-National Defence the pay back to the unit, as we used to do in the old days between wars, the men now need that money. It is a fortunate thing the government has a reserve army of this type. There is not enough administrative time to pay the handful of people who must administer the regiment. It is not like active service during the war where you can have the adjutant publish an order, and a short time later find the troops on the parade square. Every parade, every special exercise, means a terrific amount of work for those administering the regiments and sub-units. There seems to be a feeling among some that reserve army units can administer themselves within the ten days which is allowed. It cannot be done. I feel that the department should recognize the situation and deal with it accordingly on an administrative basis rather than on a training basis. It should not be granted arbitrarily, but as a matter of need.
At this time, Mr. Chairman, I want to pay tribute to the active force officers, areas, and commands of the army, for the co-operation which they have given the reserve units during the last several years. Without their co-operation, none of the units could have functioned. We have found that the active force officers will spend any amount of time and energy in assisting units with their problems, and in helping them to avoid pitfalls. This is so different from what we knew in the old N.P.A.M. days that I wanted to put it on the record.


Brooke Claxton: Mr. Chairman, I am sure the committee would be glad to learn that the 8th Princess Louise's (N.B.) Hussars commanded by Lieutenant-Colonel E. W. George, who happens to be the member for Westmorland, achieved its quota on the day business opened, Monday last.


Joseph-Alfred Dion: Shall the item carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Mr. Drew:: Mr. Chairman, the way that
suggestion is made that this item carry at this stage is to me, in itself, one of the most alarming things connected with this debate. This one item covers a total of $1,412 million, and this is the item that, it appears to be suggested, members might pass without more information than they have at this time.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is more than all the rest of the estimates in the book put together.


George Alexander Drew: Yes, more than all the rest of the estimates combined. May I point out that we are referred to what are mistakenly called the details at the back of the book. These details, so-called, commence at page 269. Let us see just how useful these details are, from the point of view of any hon. member


who is assuming his responsibility here now of passing on hundreds of millions of dollars and placing that burden upon the Canadian taxpayer. Do not let anyone raise the suggestion that anyone is questioning the necessity for effective national defence. The more necessary that becomes, however, the more necessary it is that every member in this house take some steps to make sure that every dollar spent is being spent to the best effect, and that we are going to get results from this money; that we are not going to have the same failures that have occurred year after year in the past.
Let us look at these so-called details on page 270. Under the group of naval estimates, we find one single estimate described under the heading of details, "materials and supplies, $60,189,708". Now, that may be what the Minister of Finance is laughing at so loudly, but the taxpayers of Canada are not laughing so readily at this item. These things do require some consideration, and the flippant manner in which the Minister of Finance regards an item of that kind is a test-


Douglas Charles Abbott: On a question of privilege, Mr. Chairman, perhaps I should apologize to the hon. member, but I did not happen to be listening to him. I was speaking to my parliamentary assistant about something else.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Chairman, the minister was laughing and chuckling, and it is interesting to note that he does not regard this discussion as sufficiently important, although he is the minister responsible for raising hundreds of millions of dollars for these items, which are not even given in sufficient detail for anyone to guess what they really are -


Douglas Charles Abbott: It is only now that I thought perhaps I could stop listening for a few minutes.


George Alexander Drew: It merely indicates the smart-aleck attitude of the Minister of Finance. First of all, he said he was not listening but was laughing as a result of a conversation with his parliamentary assistant, and now he says he is laughing because of the statements that are being made on the floor. It is a measure of the responsibility being assumed by this government in regard to these huge expenditures at this time.


Mr. Goode:: On a question of privilege, Mr. Chairman, may I point out -


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Chairman, I am not aware that any question has been raised.


Joseph-Alfred Dion: Any member can raise a
point of order or a question of privilege.


George Alexander Drew: I heard no remark about a
question of privilege; apparently it was a suggestion that was going to be made.


Tom Goode: May I point out to you, Mr. Chairman-


Joseph-Alfred Dion: Order.


Tom Goode: -that the leader of the opposition is criticizing the minister, but he did not find it necessary to remain in the house while the minister was making his statement.


George Alexander Drew: That, Mr. Chairman, was a
tawdry and smart-aleck remark, unworthy of any hon. member in this house. I have done what perhaps the hon. member has not done: I have read every word of the minister's statement. I have been following this subject with a great deal of attention, and I perhaps will indicate that I am aware of some of the details before I sit down. Before any suggestion is made that every member of the opposition has not spent every hour in this house, may I ask the hon. member to look at the front ranks of the government benches and see how many cabinet ministers are here while we are discussing the allocation of hundreds of millions of dollars of the people's money.


Mr. Riley:: Don't get mad.


George Alexander Drew: Now, Mr. Chairman, the item
to which I was referring was an item under the heading of "materials and supplies, $60,189,708". The next item is "acquisition and construction of buildings and works, including acquisition of land, $24,147,000". Then the next detail, as it is called, is "major procurement of equipment, $110,954,383' . Now, that is the detail that is given in that case. In other details which bring that total for the naval services up to $277,754,980, there is no more real detail than that. Then we come to the army, and let us take as an example some of the items that are called details.
Materials and supplies, $201,432,075.
Acquisition and construction of buildings and works, including acquisition of land. $75,526,500.
Then here is another item, as an example only:
Major procurement of equipment, $198,930,650.
Then we find the various totals of the so-called details for the army amounting to $667,609,100.
Then under the heading of "Air", we have further so-called details:
Materials and supplies, $101,087,385.
Acquisition and construction of buildings and works, including land, $193,570,310.
Major procurement of equipment, $406,167,927.
Those are samples of the kind of detail that is given to explain this one item that we now have before us, amounting in itself to a total of $1,412 million. We are not dealing alone today with the assurance of adequate
Supply-National Defence defence equipment. We are dealing with something that is in itself imposing upon the people of Canada one of the major problems that this country is going to be called upon to face. In the words of the Minister of Finance himself the people of Canada, along with the people of other nations, have before them two great concerns at this time: the pursuit of peace and the problem of inflation. In the pursuit of peace we are being called upon, through the vote of this committee, to supply not merely $1,412 million but, according to the statement issued by the Department of National Defence, $1,879 million during this current year. That pursuit of peace is something that is naturally going to engage the attention of the people of this country and it is something that should engage the attention of the members of the House of Commons in the most minute detail; because we are not going to defend freedom merely with dollars. We are not going to be able to defend freedom unless we make sure that we are going to be able to carry the load. In addition to taking such steps as are necessary to defend the dollar that is going to be used in this large quantity to defend our freedom, we must also be sure that, here as elsewhere, no unnecessary dollars are being spent.
I know there are those who will immediately say that when we make a demand for more information than we are getting, we are simply repeating a demand that has been made over and over again. But no matter what may have been true before, no matter what justification there may have been for urging greater detail in the past, that justification need hardly be pleaded at a time that the Minister of Finance has seen fit to place side by side with the pursuit of peace or, to use the other term, the preparation for defence, the problem of inflation itself. When we consider what measure of information we should require, I think that the strongest evidence we have of the need for more detailed information than we have yet had is furnished by the Minister of National Defence, and was furnished yesterday, as may be ascertained by anyone who was not here by a careful reading of Hansard for that day.
In his statement with regard to standardization, the Minister of National Defence said, as reported at page 2867 of Hansard:
I also exceedingly regret the failure to have more standardization.
That regret undoubtedly will be generally shared. That regret is one which undoubtedly .should also cause us a great deal of concern at this time, recognizing as we do that the common activities of the Atlantic nations

Supply-National Defence might easily demand supplies from one nation or another, and the failure to standardize might, in a period of crisis, spell the difference between victory and defeat, at least in any area where that problem had arisen.
But when we come to what follows in the statements of the Minister of National Defence, it seems to me that we find that atmosphere of continuing unreality which has surrounded all his statements since this crisis became acute a year ago. The Minister of National Defence, with justification, speaks with pride of Canadians in uniform. He is not alone in feeling that pride. I am sure every member of this committee shares that pride; and many members of the committee have been proud to be included amongst those who wore the uniform of this country on different occasions. But there is a difference between expressing justified pride in the Canadian armed forces and what they do, and giving the people of this country an impression that is not in keeping either with the facts as they really are or with the gravity of the situation with which we are confronted. Following up his reference to standardization, the Minister of National Defence said yesterday, as reported at page 2867 of Hansard:
. . . a good many months ago we decided to standardize our equipment-not right across the board but generally-with United States-type equipment.
It was not a few months ago, Mr. Chairman, that it was announced that this decision had been made; it was two years ago. It was two years ago that the Minister of National Defence announced, in a speech to a service club-and may I interpolate that that seems to be the place where most statements of policy are now enunciated -that it had been decided to standardize with United States equipment, particularly in relation to rifles, machine guns and equipment of that kind. Some time went past and we found that, instead of manufacturing rifles and machine guns of the -300 calibre during the period which had elapsed, government arsenals were manufacturing shotguns and sporting rifles which were being sold through the ordinary trade channels at a time when we were so greatly in need of equipment of this kind. That was one of the things which make it so difficult to be sure that any one of the glowing statements at any time has actually been carried into effect at some later date. There may be explanations. Yesterday the minister gave a great many explanations why a number of things had not happened that some people thought might have happened. But he then went on, after his reference to


the position a few months ago, and he said this, and I am quoting from Hansard again:
It so happened that we had the armament equipment for practically five divisions in mobilization stores, equipment of the latest type in use at the end of the second world war. We were probably unique in that respect.
I wonder what Stalin, or the men in the Kremlin, would say if they read Hansard forwarded to them by their representatives here in Ottawa. I wonder what they would think about Canada being unique in the fact that it has armament equipment for practically five divisions in store. Russia with 175 divisions in the field, and with another 175 divisions ready to be put in the field at any time, and ready also to supply China, Poland and other countries with the equipment for many divisions, and yet we are unique in that we have equipment for five divisions of a type which we were not able to use.
If that is the standard of the kind of information we are getting, then it is time that every member of this house of every party applied new tests to the statements which are given as to the ability of this country to meet any emergency which might arise. This emergency has not just arisen in the past few weeks. This emergency is one which has been foreseen for several years in increasing measure, and it should be recalled by every hon. member of this house that even if by some happy miracle we were to learn that tomorrow peace, full peace, had been declared in Korea, the necessity for preparations of this kind would not be diminished by one cent, by one gun or by one tank, by one ship, or by one aircraft. This preparation had commenced before anyone dreamed that South Korea was going to be attacked on June 25, so far as there is any evidence on the record.
The Atlantic treaty was signed long before June 25 of last year. Preparations were being made to combine the forces of the free nations for the defence of freedom and to build bulwarks of strength behind which freedom could be maintained against the threat of one great aggressor. That situation has not changed. The very fact that Korea has happened makes it clear that there can be other Koreas in other parts of the world, and that this preparation must go on. Therefore we must measure everything that has been done in the light of the fact that preparation has been going on for some time, and we must therefore see how far we have gone in meeting even the minimum basis of the requirements for a threat of that nature.
If this is the kind of threat which the Prime Minister has said it is, if it is the



JO, 1951

[Stage Direction]
kind, of threat that the Minister of National Health and Welfare said it was a few days ago, if it is the kind of threat which has been described by the Prime Minister of Britain and by the President of the United States, then what this country needs, and what every other country needs, is military forces in being ready to take the field, military forces which can be used to defend this country.
Today the Minister of National Defence explained the absence of equipment of a kind which would make it possible to engage in service activities by explaining the time that it required to produce many of the modern machines of war. That explanation undoubtedly is one related to the production now under way; but after all surely this country, and every other free country, should prepare to defend itself as best it can when an issue might arise while it is preparing for the more ideal form of defence at some later date.
It will not be any comfort to Canadians of future generations if they read that we were preparing a three-year plan or a five-year plan that would have been good had it ever been fulfilled, but that unfortunately those against whom we were making that preparation were not working on the same schedule. And yet that is exactly the situation with which we are confronted. We are confronted with the necessity of making use of such forces as we have for the preservation of peace. Surely it is within the capacity of this country to improvise and to make use of much of the equipment that we have for the purpose of creating forces in being.
We simply have no forces in being in this country today to meet any serious test that might be imposed upon us. We have a magnificent group of young men in Korea today, as fine young men as are joined today in the cause of freedom in that distant land; but it took many long months to train, to bring together and organize these young men. Now they have taken their places in the ranks of freedom. A long time ago, measured in terms of this emergency, the Canadian government, along with other governments, decided on the responsibility that this nation would accept in the defence of the Atlantic area. Surely it will not be said that Canada was not aware some time ago what its commitments were. Surely it was indicated some time ago that it had been agreed what these commitments would be.
If that agreement did take place some time ago, as was indicated in this house and elsewhere, then why is recruiting for the force
Supply-National Defence required to fulfil that commitment being started only this week? It will not increase that force in size merely to criticize that delay; but it is important, because of that delay, again to consider how far we should be prepared to give blanket approval to broad statements without detail, and certainly without more detail than we have in the book of estimates now before us.
Yesterday the Minister of National Defence devoted a good deal of time to answering certain points that had been raised. This all could be summed up in the simple words "some sweet day"; because these are expressions of hope of things they are going to be able to do rather than answers as to what they have already done.
Naturally one of the things which must be a matter of concern to every hon. member is the availability of training supplies and training equipment for whatever men are called up for such force as may be required. Well, the house was informed and the people of Canada were informed through the press gallery and dispatches that went out from here, as well as by radio and news digests of these reports, that one of the points the minister made yesterday was that the Department of National Defence had been looking for five years for a huge camp area, one hundred miles by thirty miles, large enough to train an army formation as large as a brigade.
Mr. Chairman, we have many areas in Canada large enough to train a brigade. We have now millions of acres set aside as camp areas. But if, for any reason not disclosed in detail, we needed a camp area one hundred miles by thirty miles, we did not need1 to wait five years to get it. We have 3,600,000 square miles in Canada; so it should not be too difficult to find an area of 3,000 square miles for the purposes of defence preparation.
When we are told that we need an area of this kind to carry out training and, by implication, told that the reason we could not train a brigade in Canada before was that we did not have this area-and of course we are not training a brigade in Canada now, as a brigade-let us just see some of the camp areas that are available. There is Wainwright in Alberta. Wainwright is one of the largest camp areas in this country; it is a magnificent camp area.
I am not picking that out particularly as a chosen spot, but if additional land were needed, then the dominion government had plenty of power to increase that area substantially.
2898	HOUSE OF
Supply-National Defence
Brooke Claxton: Do you suggest that would be a good place in the winter?


George Alexander Drew: And then there is Borden in Ontario. If more land is needed there, there is plenty of land that could have been acquired to add to the area of that very large camp, where at other times in the past brigades which have won renown on the field of battle in two world wars have been trained.
Then, what of Barriefield, which is not one of the largest camps by any means, but a very excellent camp and one which would compare favourably in size with some of the camps in Great Britain where divisions upon divisions have been trained in the past, and have left those camps to go right into battle. Then what about Debert, Sussex, Aldershot, Shilo, Rivers, Vernon-to mention only a few of the huge camp areas totalling millions of acres that we have here in this country.
If we needed a camp area one hundred miles by thirty miles for five years, then someone should explain to us what the ghastly failure was to act long ago. Surely we do not need to wait much longer for an area to be set aside.
And then may I refer to one of the most remarkable statements made in reference to this question of a training area. The Minister of National Defence explained that the department had its eye on an area. What an eye! This eye has apparently been well shaded for five years. But it has its eye on a place in the east. However, it may be that it would not want to tell us until after June 25, because one might know where another area might be arousing interest, in some particular part of Canada. There are of course large camp areas which would be of interest to those who may be called upon to make decisions at that time.
The really interesting part of the explanation, however, was where the minister said it was hoped that brigades would not have to do winter training in Canada, because much of the time would be spent shovelling snow. Where is the eye of the Department of National Defence?


Mr. MacDougall:: That is an all-seeing eye, George.


George Alexander Drew: May I suggest it does appear
the Department of National Defence does need one of those trained animals to lead it around, because if that department had its eye on winter problems of this kind it would have seen what is done at the airports. Personnel at airports do not shovel the snow; yet the runways are as smooth as a billiard table, and plenty smooth enough


for any artillery, tank or infantry unit to train on them. Indeed, they would be training under conditions perhaps almost too favourable, when one keeps in mind the really severe training they would need to prepare them for the areas in which they might some time have to be used.
That explanation in itself indicates why a great deal more needs to be said in the house by way of explanation and by way of suggestion, so that the Department of National Defence may get out of the woods and actually wake up to the fact that the time when parade grounds were cleared by men with shovels passed many years ago. All the department would have to do would be to borrow some of the equipment being used in other places so satisfactorily, so as to be able to train just as well as training could be carried on anywhere in the world.
And, Mr. Chairman, may I suggest that, far from taking Canadian troops out of Canada in winter, we should be training them in Canada under winter conditions; because it happens that there are the topographical contours in this country, the climate and all those other conditions which might be encountered in the very part of the world in which we would have to engage the only possible enemy we will ever have to engage within the lifetime of most of us, on a global scale.
That, Mr. Chairman, is one reason why we should, in the hope of preventing war, prepare in a way that will train our men to meet war if necessary in the very kind of area in which they would be called upon to engage the troops of the one great potential enemy that would lead the rest of the world to war at this time.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at eight o'clock.
George Alexander Drew: Before the dinner recess, Mr. Chairman, I was discussing the question of the training areas available in relation to the statement made by the minister yesterday about the fact that the government had been looking for a camp area. There is one point about which I confess there is some confusion. Perhaps the minister may have used inadvertently figures that gave a conflicting impression, but I was under the impression he used the figure of 100 square miles today in relation to the camp whereas yesterday the figure given was 100 miles by 30 miles.

I would point out that in addition to the camps I have already mentioned there are two camps which are perhaps the most historic and best known in connection with the provision of forces for the Canadian army in two world wars, and which I have not yet mentioned. I refer to Valcartier and Petawawa. Both these camps are very large by any standard, and it would seem strange indeed that in the case of Petawawa, as an example, adequate land could not be found in the adjoining area to provide whatever was necessary for purposes of training or manoeuvre. In fact it would seem that in the case of Petawawa the government might well have available one of the most remarkable training areas in the world because the provision of an added camp area on the Quebec side of the river would give the space required, and the camp would provide not only the artillery and armoured training facilities it now possesses but also immediate access to facilities for amphibious training of the very highest order.
In the case of Valcartier, with its great historic traditions, it would certainly be possible in that area to find further territory to give the required training space. I have not attempted to mention all the camps available in Canada, but the picture that is in the minds of most hon. members when the name of any one of these larger camps is mentioned must suggest that it would be a very strange thing if we could1 not train a brigade when the United Kingdom finds it possible to train many divisions with camps very much smaller than a number of those to which I have referred. I should think that in this country the decision should be made that training will be carried out here not only so that Canadian camps may be available for Canadian training purposes but also so that our own men, in this country of such immense variety and change in topography, would be ready for such service as they might be called upon to perform in any part of the world.
It is rather interesting that Great Britain should have sent a great number of men on different occasions to train in this country, and that we should find it difficult to provide adequate training for our own purposes. Many people will recall, for instance, that the famous Lovat scouts were sent over here to train near Jasper, and that other special units have been trained with great success in this country. I leave that question before the members in the hope that some of them at any rate will be impressed with the fact that one of the reasons given for not being able to proceed with training
Supply-National Defence in Canada should not be the suggestion that we have not the space already available here.
Let me refer to another point made by the minister yesterday. He spoke of the fact that modification of the original plans for the production of military vehicles had been necessary, and that this was going to be done with a recognition of the fact that some of these vehicles, and certain parts thereof, could best be turned out in the United States.
I should think there would be little tendency to take issue with that statement in regard to certain parts of our requirements, but I do suggest that here again the time is long overdue for such a decision to have been made if we are to accept the statements of the government last year as well as this in support of the very large appropriations which this house is being asked to vote.
Then we are told by the minister that it will be late this autumn before the first of Canada's new anti-submarine escort vessels is launched, and that it will be a considerable time longer before they are all at sea. Hon. members who have had contact with matters of this kind will recognize that specialists on the machines, the weapons and certain of the very intricate apparatus need to be trained for a very long time before they can handle this highly specialized equipment. Long before these ships are available the men who will handle the radar installations, the various submarine detection devices and the very delicate and intricate mechanism of the ship itself should be in training so they can be placed on board and put the ships into active operation as soon as they are completed.
Then may I refer to the statement by the minister in regard to the aircraft carrier Magnificent, in reply to the statement by the hon. member for Nanaimo that the Magnificent is obsolete. The minister does not say the description given by the hon. member for Nanaimo does not apply in any way. What he does say is that she has three or four years of useful life.


Brooke Claxton: If I said that, Mr Chairman, I did not say enough. I should have said "without modification", because the Magnificent and ships like her have many more years than that of useful life, but after modification. I would not like it to be represented that ships of that class are obsolete in three years.


George Alexander Drew: Then does the minister agree that they are obsolete without modification?


Brooke Claxton: No; they are adequate for the job for which they were intended, and to

Supply-National Defence handle the aircraft with which they are equipped at the present time. But successive improvements will be made in this class of aircraft, and if we have an aircraft carrier we will make those improvements at the time they should be made.


George Alexander Drew: If it were convenient perhaps it might be best if the minister would say whether the Magnificent is in fact in every way up to date by modern standards, and able to deal with submarines.


Brooke Claxton: That is the sort of thing no one can say until submarines are met and dealt with. But I can say that aircraft carriers of her class are being successively and progressively modified. Whether we decide to do that this year or next year remains to be seen, but for the purposes for which the Magnificent is designed she is doing that job today.


George Alexander Drew: That answer illustrates the difficulty with which members of this house are confronted. The minister has now informed us that aircraft carriers of this type are being progressively modified, and presumably after modification are capable of undertaking this extremely important work. Nothing the minister has said is in any way a direct reply to the statement by the hon. member for Nanaimo that at present, by modern standards, the Magnificent is not suitable for this service. The minister has said they do not know whether they will do it this year or next year; but we are dealing with one of the greatest emergencies this world has ever known, measured in terms of dollars by the figure of $1,800 million. That is merely the extent of the emergency in terms of dollars and cents, and I suggest that it is not sufficient to be told that perhaps this year or perhaps next year modifications may be made which would give us an aircraft carrier capable of undertaking the active service she was built and designed to perform. I leave that question there, because I am satisfied that the answer given by the minister is the most positive evidence that could be put forward of the unsatisfactory nature of the information before this house in regard to such an important piece of equipment as an aircraft carrier; and so it is with much of the other equipment that has been under discussion.
Then we were told about the training of the brigade, what it cost and what it would have cost if we had trained those men in Canada. I will revert to my earlier remarks about training in Canada only to say this. In addition to those already mentioned there is one reason why we should train our men in Canada. We are still under the necessity of


seeking to conserve our dollar resources, and every dollar spent outside the country is an added burden at a time when money is part of the very struggle in which we are engaged. I do not think it amiss, either, to mention the fact, which has been stated officially already, that the cost of training men in the United States is higher that it is in Canada. That is another reason why we should provide for that training in this country.
Now let me refer to our air defences. It is not necessary to raise any question about the plans that have been made, whether forty squadrons will be sufficient in three years. I repeat that the thing we should be concerned about is what we are going to have this year. We have four squadrons now. What are we going to have in this year 1951? What are we going to have during the months that have been described as the most critical in the history of the modern world? As the minister himself has indicated, that question is not going to be answered substantially by our own production lines during the current year. Moreover there is the question whether even now we are taking those steps which should be taken to have trained personnel available when our own production lines are able to meet the demand for the latest type of modern aircraft. I do not think the minister will challenge the statement that one of the very real problems being faced today is that of providing adequate ground crews for the squadrons being trained. Hon. members who have had the opportunity of observing what is being done know that the whole efficiency of an air force rests upon the iadequacy of the training of the ground personnel. The most skilled and the most gallant pilots may survive but a very short time, even without any other considerations than the problem of the aircraft itself, unless the men who handle these extremely fast and tremendously powerful machines have had long months, yes and years, of training in the jobs of servicing aircraft of that kind. Right now we should be far ahead of where we really are in the training of the specialists who are needed for the ground crews. If we, in fact, are contemplating a real contribution of forty squadrons at some time within the measurable future, then we should be training skilled ground crews now for those forty squadrons so that when the pilots and air crew needed for those machines go into the air the whole force could be brought into being at one and the same time. Certainly, the methods that are now being followed do not assure the availability of skilled men of that kind. It seems that the members of this house should not be satisfied to pass this, as merely a matter of dollars and cents, without some assurance that the steps that are going

to be taken will in fact bring into existence the kind of force that we have been told is being planned.
When I mention specialists for the ground crews, and specialists for the navy, I might include the highly trained personnel required for the armoured forces, the artillery and other army units today. That brings us, then, to one of the subjects mentioned by the Minister of National Defence yesterday. As reported at page 2871 of Hansard, the Minister of National Defence said this:
It was suggested that we should make an appraisal of our manpower resources. These appraisals especially made for a special purpose can soon become out of date. The dominion bureau of statistics and the Department of Labour have continuous appraisals, and I have been told that from most points of view the information they have is adequate for statistical planning with regard to manpower in this country.
Mr. Chairman, I can only take it that the minister was speaking as the Minister of National Defence. If he was speaking of manpower as Minister of National Defence, then I say that it is misleading this house, whether unintentionally or otherwise, to convey the impression that the information in possession of the bureau of statistics or the Department of Labour is adequate for the allocation of manpower to the armed forces of this country. There is not an hon. member in this house who has had any occasion whatever to study the problem of allocating manpower in the armed forces, either in small units or in large, who does not know that there must be a most careful inquiry not only into the skill possessed by the individual but also as to the temperament, physical capacity for certain types of jobs, and the general suitability of the individual for the particular kind of work. Frankly, it is just eyewash, and eyewash of a very dangerous kind, to suggest that the Department of Labour and the bureau of statistics have the kind of information that would be required to allocate manpower for these three great branches of the armed services. Once again, Mr. Chairman, I only comment on this for the purpose of indicating something of the manner in which this important subject is being, considered, when I refer to the very silly comments that are being made by some hon. members on the other side during the discussion of this very important subject.


Mr. Ferrie:: What about yourself? Why don't you take that back? Why don't you tell Russia we have not got anything?


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Chairman, I have no intention of informing Russia about the hon. member. .


Gladstone Mansfield Ferrie: You have not any intention of telling us anything.
Supply-National Defence


George Alexander Drew: If there were anything whatever in the suggestion that these statistics supply the information required, then what was all the hullabaloo about the appointment of the manpower council which we heard only a couple of months ago? Apparently now the Minister of National Defence is going to wait to be told by the advisory committee on manpower whether he should do something about this. Well, the advisory committee on manpower was announced with every effort to create an impression as to its importance. The statements that were made at the time were accepted by the people of Canada as evidence that something definitely was being done to deal with this subject. Just as an example to illustrate how it was accepted in different parts of the country, let me read what was said by the Halifax Chronicle-Herald of February 7, three months ago:
The national advisory council on manpower, just announced by the Minister of Labour, will have serious tasks of allocation of such power on its agenda before long. Its work will have to be carefully integrated with that of the ministry of defence.
And so the comments went right across the country. This committee was to be for the purpose of examining manpower, and to make provision for its allocation. That was the impression given, and that was the impression which it was intended the people should have. Now this advisory council on manpower is apparently regarded as something unnecessary, if we are to take the statement of the Minister of National Defence yesterday. If his statement is to be taken literally, then all the information that we require from time to time is available from these other sources. But, Mr. Chairman, the Minister of National Defence said that statistics can very soon become outdated. Statistics will always become outdated if you do not get them in the first place, and that is exactly the situation. They are not going to be outdated if we do not even have them. At the moment, no attempt has been made to provide the basic information on which this government can carry out any part of those plans which have been placed before this house.
We received what was called a white paper just before the minister made his statement. It was called a white paper, but it has very properly been said in responsible references to it that it could be called a green paper, a yellow paper or a red paper or anything else, and it would mean the same thing. It is nothing but a collection of statements made publicly from time to time before they

Supply-National Defence were brought into this form. Any suggestion that this so-called white paper constitutes a presentation of a new set of facts for consideration by this house has been properly described, in a number of responsible publications, as a fraud upon the people of Canada. It is nothing but an attempt to put in digested form the statements we have already been given.
Now, Mr. Chairman, one of the things that must surely be clear now is that if there were some method by which the members of this house were sure that what was happening was under constant supervision, then we would not suddenly discover these things indirectly as we do at the present time. If, for instance, there had been some device by which responsible members of all parties had continuing access to information in the House of Commons and outside, then, having regard to the statement by the Minister of National Defence that Canada had decided to standardize its equipment two years ago, the members of this committee would have known long ago that the decision had not in fact been implemented at any time. We would not suddenly have discovered two years later that the decision, if it was made, at any rate had not actually been carried into operative effect. The members of this committee would also have known that we were not able to train some of our units. They would know something about the equipment that we have available in this country. They would know something about the adequacy of our training facilities to which reference has been made.
In the light of the contradictions to which I have referred, in the face of the very kind of answer given by the Minister of National Defence with regard to the Magnificent, I repeat once again, in spite of the statement already made by the Minister of National Defence, that the security of this country and the fulfilment of the obligation of parliament demand the setting up without any further delay of a select committee on national defence. Why is the government resisting this reasonable proposal?
Not one reason given by the government for nqt setting up such a committee holds water. On an earlier occasion the Minister of National Defence said that it would be taking from the government its responsibility for policy.


An hon. Member:: That is where I came in in 1949.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Chairman, I think I shall refer to the remark just made by one of the Liberal members: That is where I came in in 1949. I am glad to hear that flippant
[Mr. Drew.l

remark, which indicates exactly how much that member has learned since he came in in 1949, or how much he wants to learn. That hon. member has been here since 1949, and apparently he is just as satisfied now as he was then simply to cast his ballot and to hope that everything will be all right.


An hon. Member:: You could not make a better statement.


Joseph-Alfred Dion: Order.


An hon. Member:: That is the best thing you have said tonight.


George Alexander Drew: No, Mr. Chairman; I think one of the most useful things that could happen would be if the people of Canada were able to listen over the radio to the applause of Liberal members for a statement of that kind. I only regret that we have not yet television in Canada, so that the people of Canada could see an imitation of trained seals such as we are seeing in this committee at the present time. The only difference, of course, is that trained seals usually have an intelligent look upon their faces.


An hon. Member:: You are getting red around the neck now.


Joseph-Alfred Dion: Order.


An hon. Member:: You would look beautiful.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Chairman, it is just exactly as the hon. member said; and I am referring to the last one.
Mr. Chairman, we are discussing survival, and we hear these asinine remarks from Liberal members in regard to things of this kind. We are discussing at this time an item of over $1,400 million and we hear nothing but maudlin nonsense from many of the Liberal members who are supposed to be representing the Canadian people at a time like this.


An hon. Member:: The people have put the administration of their affairs in good hands, though.


George Alexander Drew: It is at least reassuring, Mr. Chairman-


An hon. Member:: We have to listen to this; we might as well participate.


George Alexander Drew: -to know that some of the members are actually alive; because the only time that we hear from some of them is when they make noises such as they are making at the moment.


An hon. Member:: That was a profound remark.


Gladstone Mansfield Ferrie: When they have something to say, they say it.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Chairman, it is not surprising that the Minister of National Defence finds so little reason to be concerned about the information that he gives to the House of Commons when he has a demonstration of this kind, indicating that no matter how little information the committee gets, the Liberal members will act as rubber stamps just the same, and he can get their support.


An hon. Member:: Get on with defence. Let us hear about that. Say some more.


Joseph-Alfred Dion: Order.


An hon. Member:: We cannot stop him.


George Alexander Drew: That is another profound
remark, "we cannot stop him", also from one of the Liberal members. I assure you, Mr. Chairman, that you cannot stop me from saying what I intend to say with regard to this extremely important subject.


James Sinclair: You go on like Tennyson's brook.


George Alexander Drew: I have already said to the
Minister of National Defence-I agree that this has been said since 1949; and it was said before that-that the members of the House of Commons should have the assurance of continuing access, through a select committee, to information as to how the defence preparations of this country are proceeding. On one occasion the Minister of National Defence made the statement that the reason for not appointing such a committee was that it would take from the government the responsibility for policy which is theirs. No suggestion at any time has been made that the responsibility of the government for policy should be in any way limited or abridged. What has been urged-and it has been urged over and over again-is that a select committee on national defence be set up in exactly the same way that a committee is set up to deal with external affairs, so that the members of the house may have an opportunity of discussing these matters in detail and finding out what the facts are.


Edmund Davie Fulton: As with the Canadian National Railways and Trans-Canada Air Lines.


George Alexander Drew: Committees are also set up to deal with such matters as the Canadian National Railways, Trans-Canada Air Lines and other public operations of that kind. Why should the Department of National Defence alone not be susceptible to the ordinary supervision of a committee, just as are these other extremely important departments? Surely the Department of External Affairs deals with just as secret material as does the Department of National Defence; and yet the Department of External Affairs is at this very time seeking the approval of a motion 80709-185
Supply-National Defence to refer to a committee the examination of their own accounts. The Minister of National Defence heard the very excellent speech made by the hon. member for Quebec South. That speech, made by the dean of the House of Commons, illustrated what is thought by hon. members with long years of experience as to the necessity for bringing back under parliament itself effective control over the most important subjects that are being considered by this body.
If such a committee were set up, it should be set up as a continuing committee, authorized to sit not only when the house is in session but when the session has prorogued. Members from every party with special knowledge of these subjects could be appointed, and I feel sure, Mr. Chairman, that if such a committee were meeting, were supervising the details of national defence, hon. members would be satisfied in almost every case with their reports without any further consideration' of the detail beyond that which had already taken place. That is what we find happens when other committees are set up to deal with extremely important but involved details of government business.
I am not certain that the government has yet advanced to the ipoint of parliamentary maturity that it would follow Westminster to the extent of appointing as chairman the man who is obviously best qualified. But this house is in the fortunate position of having as a possible chairman of that committee a man with unique experience, the hon. member for Nanaimo, who could sit as the chairman of this committee with experience such as no other member of this house possesses. But whether the government was prepared to appoint a member of the opposition as chairman, or insisted upon a member of their own party as chairman, would not in any way lessen the opportunity to have a real examination of all these details by a committee that could sit down in an orderly way and proceed to deal with the thing in a businesslike manner, if men like the hon. member for Nanaimo and other experienced veterans in this house were sitting on such a committee and asking the questions and obtaining the information which could be obtained.	*
In the closing part of his remarks the Minister of National Defence did say that he wanted these accounts examined in detail. These accounts cannot be examined in detail in this house unless the Minister of National Defence will take a preliminary step. That preliminary step would be to prepare a detailed statement of every one of these items which are now called details. This afternoon I referred; to some of the so-called details. I just
2904	HOUSE OF
Supply-National Defence gave as one example not the general item but the detail: "Major procurement of equipment, $406,167,927." Even with a pencil and paper, if the minister were prepared to go through every detail that made it up, hon. members could not possibly follow it in an orderly way sitting in this house and obtaining it by question and answer; but there is one simple and obvious way to do it. The Minister of National Defence I am perfectly sure has, in the mass of material in these two great black boxes that he has beside him, fairly substantial detail in regard to these items. If a committee were meeting and dealing with these subjects then that committee would be entitled to have a statement of these various real details that go to make up that total.
Do not let us be misled by any suggestion that contained in that total are pieces of secret equipment. There is not a single hon. member in this house who would not be prepared at any time to take a reasonable explanation that some particular thing was really secret. Hon. members would soon be able to determine whether it was secret or not. But the broad answer that it is not in the public interest, which has been given so often in this house, is altogether too often simply a statement that the government does not think it is in the public interest for hon. members and the people of Canada to know how far they have failed to carry out the assurances they have given the public on earlier occasions.
The Minister of National Defence does not leave the members of this house with any real opportunity to go into detail by simply confronting us with a huge item like that, an item that is more than the total budget of this country for all purposes only a few years ago, and then say: You ask the questions and I will give the details. The Minister of National Defence knows how it would be done in any businesslike examination. Set the things out in detail. If there are subjects that should not be disclosed let them be so indicated, but the total given, and then hon. members will be able to discuss those with some knowledge of what the facts really axe.
I come back to the fact that when, according to the statements made by the government, inflation and the defence of the country go hand in hand as the two greatest problems we face, then the time has come to be sure that we have something more than guesswork in regard to all this, to be sure that we have the real facts. And once again with all earnestness I urge the minister to reconsider the position that he has taken and to agree to setting up a committee, and to adjourn the consideration of these items, as will be done in the case of the Department
[Mr. Drew.J

of External Affairs, and refer all these items to such a committee of the house.


Mr. Poulioi:: I have listened with great interest to the eloquent speech of the leader of the opposition. His conclusion was for the establishment of a select committee on national defence. I am for it, and I will surprise the hon. gentleman when I tell him that we have it already. This is a committee of the house, and this is a committee on [DOT]national defence, and when my hon. friend the leader of the opposition speaks it cannot be otherwise. This is a select standing committee of the house. Still, Mr. Chairman, there is more to it.
I listened to the hon. gentleman before dinner. I was moved by his speech. Then I had to eat a little to get some strength to listen to the continuation of his speech. I was wide awake. I did not miss a word. He spoke very well, but he complained that he had not received detailed information with regard to an item in the estimates.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Any item in the estimates.


Jean-François Pouliot: I would remind the hon. gentleman of one thing. He made a statement, but did not ask a question. The minister could not guess what his question would be. He asked no questions; he made a statement. That is not detailed enough. I am sure that if he had asked the minister for further information he would have got it.


George Alexander Drew: I have.


Jean-François Pouliot: No, no.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Yes, yes.


Jean-François Pouliot: I heard the hon. gentleman complaining of the fact that it was not detailed enough.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: It is not.


Jean-François Pouliot: I did not hear him ask any questions of the minister. I am sure that the minister, who is familiar with the constitutional and parliamentary practice, just as is the hon. gentleman, would give him any possible information about expenditures. That is why I am all in favour of a committee like this one to discuss national defence, as a matter of expenditures ahd as a matter of dollars and cents. But when it comes to a matter of strategy, when it comes to the national defence, proper, of this country, I do not see why it should be discussed in public.
To my mind the treatment of General Marshall at the hands of a committee of congress is disgraceful. Here is this man-


Edmund Davie Fulton: So also was the treatment of General MacArthur.


Jean-François Pouliot: I will ask Kamloops to keep quiet until I look after him.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Talk sense and I will keep quiet.


Jean-François Pouliot: And he shall not remind me that he is in the house at the present time, because I will think of him in due course.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Hear, hear.


Jean-François Pouliot: I am glad my hon. friend says hear, hear; it shows he is improving. I am speaking in reply to what his leader has said.


Edmund Davie Fulton: You are not doing a very good job of it.


Jean-François Pouliot: Well, if that is the judgment of a Tory, I am satisfied.


Edmund Davie Fulton: You always did have a singletrack mind.


An hon. Member:: Better than two tracks going in different directions.


Jean-François Pouliot: I may have a single-track mind; but I am on the main line, while my hon. friend is on a siding-with dead-freight cars.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The Temiscouata railway has been the main line ever since the C.N.R. took it over.


Jean-François Pouliot: The Temiscouata railway is the best railway in America, compared to my hon. friend himself.
I will not be personal, because I like the hon. member for Kamloops-but I also like my peace, too, especially when I am speaking about the remarks made by the leader of the opposition. I want him to understand my point of view, and I am sure he will.
Let me take this opportunity to congratulate him and to tell him what progress he has made in politics since he has been a member of the House of Commons-and I say that sincerely, and with respect and esteem.
Coming to the discussion of the matter before the committee, I would stress to the hon. member the fact that it is the function of this committee to check expenditures; it is not to go deep into the strategy of the Department of National Defence and its staff. This, sir, I contend should be secret policy that must not be advertised, as is American strategy, which is published in every American newspaper, and broadcast over all radio stations throughout the world. That cannot help in the defence of the great country that is the United States of America. So much is this true that our great neighbour could be spied upon from the Antipodes precisely because of the fact that the news items the leader of the opposition is so 80709-1851
Supply-National Defence eager to get publicly may be the best information to any possible enemy.
This is so much the case that I remember very well the time when conscription was discussed in the house, immediately after the resignation of the late Colonel Ralston, the then minister of national defence, who said there were weak points in the allied army in France, and insisted so much on that that the information was given to the German command, with the result that they rallied all their forces for a supreme attack in northern France, an attack which cost countless lives of American and Canadian soldiers.
The hon. member who is leader of the opposition, and the hon. member who is chief opposition critic, both of whom are men of military experience, must be aware of that fact. Perhaps they have never thought of it, perhaps they have never put the two ends together; but they must remember what was said by the former minister of national defence, and the statements that were broadcast by the press and by all the Tory speakers. Those statements were put on the wires of the news agencies and. spread throughout the world. They were known to the spies we had in the country and to the intelligence service of the enemy. They could draw conclusions.
It must be remembered that it is precisely on account of the untimely and uncalled for statements of that former minister of national defence in the house about the weaknesses of our army that the American soldiers and Canadian soldiers were killed in such numbers in the last days of the war.


George Randolph Pearkes: Who was that minister?


Jean-François Pouliot: I am speaking of the former minister of national defence, Colonel Ralston.


George Randolph Pearkes: Oh.


Jean-François Pouliot: Just after his resignation.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Chairman, I do not wish to interrupt the hon. member, but is he referring to the attack that was known as the Battle of the Bulge, which was directed against American troops? I must confess I find it difficult to understand how that is related to any statement made by the late Colonel Ralston.


Jean-François Pouliot: Well, I will explain it by the A-plus-B method to the hon. member.


Edmund Davie Fulton: That will be simpler than anything you have done before.


Jean-François Pouliot: And I am sure he will understand. The hon. member, who is an encyclopaedia of bellicose warfare, and who knows everything about the three branches of the
2906	HOUSE OF
Supply-National Defence armed services, must remember that Colonel Ralston complained of the fact that conscription had not already been imposed for overseas service when reinforcements were badly needed on the allied front. Does he remember that? Does he not remember that was precisely the reason given by Colonel Ralston for his resignation? The hon. member was not in the house at the time. It is a very serious question. My hon. friend probably said the same thing as Colonel Ralston, but the point is that the reason alleged by Colonel Ralston for his resignation was the fact that reinforcements were badly needed on our front in France. The hon. member cannot deny that.
Although the hon. member for Nanaimo was then in the army, he had time to read the evening paper when he was on the coast, and I am sure he remembers this statement too. It was the very statement of d man who occupied a prominent position in the government that was the inspiration for the German command to make a supreme attack against the allied, forces on the front. This is history.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The hon. member is talking nonsense, and he knows it.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Chairman, just so that we may all have the privilege of reading this extremely interesting history, will the hon. member direct us to the place where that history may be read?


Jean-François Pouliot: It can be read in Hansard. Hansard is this publication where we find the illuminating speeches of the hon. gentleman.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I did not know the speeches of the German command were recorded in Hansard.


George Alexander Drew: I was referring to the decision of the German higher command to attack. Many of us are interested in this subject. I was under the impression that the record indicated this was one of the cases where Hitler had given direct instructions to his field commander. I for one should like to know where this contrary history is to be found.


Edmund Davie Fulton: In the mind of the hon. member for Temiscouata and nowhere else.


Jean-François Pouliot: Quack, quack, quack.


Edmund Davie Fulton: That is just what you sound like.


Jean-François Pouliot: I never had such a distinguished pupil as the leader of the opposition.


Edmund Davie Fulton: No one ever had a more inept teacher.


Jean-François Pouliot: I will explain to the leader of the opposition how history can be studied and understood by relating cause and effect. At that time the war in France was at a standstill. The Germans were not moving. Only two weeks after the ill-fated statement made by a former cabinet minister, two weeks during which the enemy organized, the attack took place which resulted in the death of countless men. I will tell the hon. gentleman that if he uses his intelligence to understand the relation existing between cause and effect he will not ask any more questions about these matters, and he will agree with me just as the hon. member for Kamloops must now do. To summarize what I have said-


An hon. Member:: That will be a job.


An hon. Member:: Why?


James Arthur Ross: Some undertaking.


Jean-François Pouliot: It is a very simple thing. To summarize what I have said, I am satisfied with this committee. We are proceeding in the normal way to discuss expenditure. We are discussing the length of life of the Magnificent. When I utter that word I could apply it to the speeches of my hon. friend but I am speaking of the man-of-war. We are speaking of the rejuvenation of the Magnificent, of arms, ammunition, boats, aeroplanes, et cetera. My hon. friend wants some information. The Minister of National Defence has done something that should have satisfied him entirely if he had taken advantage of the invitations sent to him by the minister. Never before to my knowledge- and I am not one of those younger members of parliament for whom the hon. gentleman had contemptuous words-have I seen a minister invite members of parliament to visit munition plants, aeroplane factories, defence outposts such as Churchill, and so on, to see exactly how the money has been spent.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Jean-François Pouliot: Instead of asking sempiternal questions in a select committee as was done unsuccessfully but at leisure last year in the railways and shipping committee with reference to the North Star, instead of wasting time answering silly questions-and the word "silly" is not mine; I learned it tonight -the minister has invited the leader of the opposition and other hon. members of the house to see with their own eyes what has been done.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Colonel Ralston did the same
thing. He told members they could go to the different plants if they wanted to. He said he would give them an invitation to go there.


Jean-François Pouliot: Yes, but he gave that invitation just before he gave his resignation.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: His resignation war forced
upon him.


Jean-François Pouliot: Well, now that I have established the fact I intended to establish, I shall not discuss it further. I have no grudge against a dead man. The only thing I wanted to indicate to the hon. gentleman, who is the great leader of a great party, is that when he indulges in suggestions like those he has made it is very dangerous, because it is informative to the enemy. In my opinion everything concerning strategy should be kept secret; and if the government has not the confidence of the house the only thing to do is vote against it. A distinction should be established between expenditure and strategy. I am sure the hon. member for Nanaimo will agree with me.


George Randolph Pearkes: I will tell you whether I
agree.


Jean-François Pouliot: I do not want to force an
agreement upon him; but I like him-


Stanley Howard Knowles: On a question of privilege,
Mr. Chairman, I do not wish to get into the argument but out of fairness to the name of Colonel Ralston, which has been mentioned, may I say just now I looked in my pocket and found that I still have the parliamentary identification card and pass which was issued to me by the defence department, and it was dated April 9, 1943. That was at least a year and a half before the date of Colonel Ralston's resignation. We were advised that we could secure these passes and make the visits that were suggested. I am sure the hon. member would like to be fair to Colonel Ralston, and have it confirmed that these invitations were issued some time before his resignation, while he was minister of the department.


Jean-François Pouliot: I had a similar card signed
by Commissioner Wood of the mounted police, but I never had that invitation. If my hon. friend was invited it was probably because he was in the opposition. The members on the government side had no such invitation.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Yes; it was given personally
in the house.


Jean-François Pouliot: I tell Peterborough to keep
quiet. I am not going to discuss it further, but I stand by what I have said.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: You want the truth?


Jean-François Pouliot: Oh, no; I referred to it only
incidentally, and I will stand by what I have said concerning the statement on the necessity of reinforcements for our troops in France
Supply-National Defence and the blunder it was to make that statement. It was an error of judgment that cost the lives of many good soldiers.


Douglas Scott Harkness: How do you know?


James Arthur Ross: He does not know what he is talking about.


Jean-François Pouliot: I will tell Souris to be as quiet as a mouse.


The Deputy Chairman:: Order. I would
ask the hon. member when referring to another hon. member to refer to him as the hon. member for Souris, or the hon. member for Kamloops, or whatever it may be.


Jean-François Pouliot: I will call them right honourable. I have never put their honesty in doubt. We differ, that is all.


An hon. Member:: There is a difference between a mouse and a rat.


Jean-François Pouliot: I would ask my hon. friend who benefited from the operation of the nickel company in Norway during the war to keep quiet. He was so happy that those plants were making money in occupied Norway at that time.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Better stick to something you know something about.


Jean-François Pouliot: I will tell the babe, who is not Babe Ruth, to keep quiet. It is so easy to arouse the feelings of hon. gentlemen. If we had some cards from the commissioner of the R.C.M.P., I never had any invitation to visit a munition plant during the last war. There is another thing I want to tell the hon. gentleman in all fairness. Apparently he is opposed to an advisory committee or council on manpower. I am opposed to it too, though probably not for the same reasons. With all the information already at the disposal of the Department of Labour and the Department of National Defence I do not see the need of any advisory council on manpower, and in this I agree with him.
There is more to it than that. I will tell the hon. member what are my credentials, what is my power of attorney to discuss these matters in the house. They are a resolution from the county council of Riviere du Loup, another one from the county council of Temiscouata, and another from the city council of Riviere du Loup, all approving the stand I took during the last war and encouraging me to continue to defend the right of the farmer, the man in overalls, the miner, the railwayman and all those occupied in essential industry to the respect of their fellow citizens, to be recognized as essential in war industry and not to be treated as slackers and zombies. I remember that during the last war, with

Supply-National Defence some of my colleagues, I had the painful duty of explaining to the government the importance of the work of farmers, railway-men, miners, makers of uniforms, arms, ammunition and so on.


Edmund Davie Fulton: And the Temiscouata railway.


Jean-François Pouliot: I have compassion for the
hon. member, Mr. Chairman.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am grateful for it.


Jean-François Pouliot: I discuss a matter which is vital to farmers, miners and those engaged in essential work, and an hon. member of the opposition speaks platitudes when I discuss that matter seriously. I am very sorry for him. In one sense he is fortunate, in that his constituents are not in the gallery here to judge his performance as it deserves to be judged.


Edmund Davie Fulton: They are fortunate, because they would have to listen to you for an hour and a half.


Jean-François Pouliot: My speeches are reported in full in the local newspaper, and there is not a man or woman in my county who ignores what I say. They approve it, too.


Edmund Davie Fulton: They do not know anything better.


Jean-François Pouliot: Well, Mr. Chairman, I have been told to have pity, to be full of compassion, and I am. There are occasions when one has a duty to defend men who are doing a great service, such as the farmers, the miners, the railwaymen and many others. If all those men were brought into the army what would be the result? The result would be that there would be no transportation system; there would be no munitions and no arms available; the soldiers would not have the uniforms that they need; they would not be fed, and so on.
Now, sir, I am very glad that we do not hear very much about the advisory council on manpower. I am a supporter of the government, and I hope-


Douglas Scott Harkness: God knows why you are a
supporter of the government.


Jean-François Pouliot: Because it is a good government.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I am beginning to lose
confidence in your judgment.


Jean-François Pouliot: Well, my hon. friend could
not say that to the hon. member for Nanaimo, who has shown that he is broadminded and recognizes the merit of the government in doing things that are sensible, especially with regard to manpower and with regard to the defence of this country. The leader of the opposition knows very well that what we
	.
need for our defence in this country is mobile units. Naturally, the R.C.A.F. is the best weapon for our defence. He will not deny it.
Now, sir, I regret that I have spoken at such length.


Some hon. Members:: So do we.


Jean-François Pouliot: I understand it. I have one
thing to say in conclusion, and you will be surprised, sir, to hear me congratulate the opposition on their stand since the beginning of the war. When I say that, I refer to all the groups forming the opposition. During the last war-I would say with the exception of the hon. member for Peel when he was leader of the opposition-the fanaticism that existed in the Conservative ranks was something beyond words. I remember very well the hon. member who was leader of the opposition before the hon. member for Peel was so fanatic-he was praising the members of the government and handing them bouquets-that I had to compare him to Ferdinand the bull with a daisy in his mouth for each one of the cabinet ministers. He did not know that Ferdinand the bull was one of Disney's characters, and he was mad about it. He wanted me to withdraw, and I told him that I would withdraw everything except the bull.


Edmund Davie Fulton: That is about your level.


An hon. Member:: This is history.


Douglas Scott Harkness: So said the bull calf.


Edmund Davie Fulton: When you have withdrawn
everything, that is all that is left, the bull.


Jean-François Pouliot: I am not accustomed to
understanding the language of the hon. member for Kamloops.


Edmund Davie Fulton: No, only when you are using it.


Jean-François Pouliot: I am surprised that a gentleman of his refinement used language like that. I find it more pitiful than ever. Notwithstanding what has been said, I do want to compliment the opposition on the progress that they have made since the last war. It may be due in large measure to the great leadership of the hon. leader of the opposition. I say that very seriously. I know that in his party there are some active elements that he has to control. He has done it with tact, and I sincerely congratulate him. To show that I have no prejudice, I sympathize with him. I remember all the bellicose gentlemen who were going to war all the time, and who wanted some more information about strategy to inform the enemy. This must end. I am sure that if

any hon. gentleman of the opposition is worried about some aspect of national defence, he will only have to speak-


Douglas Scott Harkness: We are worried about all of it.


Jean-François Pouliot: My hon. friend is worried
about himself, that is the worst of it. But as he is worried about himself, he may improve in due course. I will say to the hon. gentlemen that whenever they want some information about secret matters concerning defence they will only have to go to the Minister of National Defence, and I am sure that he will trust them and give them the information they want.
Now, sir, I have spoken long enough. If I have said something that was not exactly pleasant, if I have not a flower in my mouth for every member of the opposition as Ferdinand the bull had, I regret it very much. I had to make two points. The first is that it is extremely dangerous to talk publicly about national defence strategy in the House of Commons, either in the house or before a committee. In the second place, all members of the House of Commons should bow before the man in overalls who is the friend of the soldier, the airman and the sailor.


Louis-René Beaudoin: The hon. member for Lethbridge. The hon. member for Nanaimo will agree that since there are other parties in this house, and that I am informed no member of the Social Credit party has spoken so far, I will give the floor to the hon. member for Lethbridge.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, I would just draw to your attention the fact that this afternoon, after the Minister of National Defence had spoken, the hon. member for Coast-Capilano and I rose. The chairman saw the hon. member for Coast-Capilano, another member on the government side and a parliamentary assistant.


Some hon. Members:: Shame, shame.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Shame, yes; it is a shame.


Louis-René Beaudoin: The hon. member will realize that if he wanted to raise that incident as a point of order, it should have been raised this afternoon.


Edmund Davie Fulton: No, Mr. Chairman, I did not want to raise a point of order; I just wanted to keep the record straight.


Mr. Blackmore:: Mr. Chairman, I always like to see a man who has served his country well receive credit for that service. I had the privilege of sitting in the house during world war II, and I had the privilege also of having
Supply-National Defence a good deal of almost confidential relations with the late Mr. Ralston who was the minister of national defence. I should like to say here that, being a member of the opposition, I would have no ulterior reason for supporting the government or supporting Mr. Ralston, but in my judgment Colonel Ralston was largely responsible for the military success which Canada enjoyed during world war II. The hon. member for Temiscouata is quite justified in having his own personal opinions. He has expressed them. I do not question his sincerity. I now wish to say that in my judgment the attack which the hon. member referred to was not a result of any remark which Colonel Ralston made.


Jean-François Pouliot: If my hon. friend will permit me to interrupt, may I say that it was not an attack at all. It was just a reminiscence of public statements made in the house.


John Horne Blackmore: I fear that I did not make my meaning quite clear to the hon. member for Temiscouata. I was referring to the attack of the Germans upon the allies, which resulted in a great number of deaths. I do not believe that that attack was in any way a result of the remarks of Colonel Ralston.
I think it is only fair to the country and to Colonel Ralston to make this statement, namely, that Colonel Ralston conducted the Department of National Defence in Canada during world war II under conditions of extreme difficulty. He was confronted on every hand with the almost impossible problem of getting sufficient men into the army under the right categories to enable him to reinforce the men he sent across to Europe. That was a result of the altogether uncertain attitude which was assumed by various members in the house with respect to conscription for military service. It is only fair to Colonel Ralston that that fact be known; and the statements which Colonel Ralston made had something to do with that problem also. Probably that is the thing that caused him to be released from his position.
But certainly-and let me repeat it-this country owes Colonel Ralston a debt of gratitude not only for the gallant service he rendered in world war I but also for the splendid work he did as minister of national defence in Canada during world war II.


George Randolph Pearkes: Mr. Chairman, by ancient custom the seating arrangement in this chamber follows that in effect in the House of Commons at Westminster, the mother of parliaments, in which on your right are aligned the supporters of the government of the day and on your left are aligned members of the opposition. It so happens that in this particular house the majority of the government

Supply-National Defence supporters is so large that they overflow the seats which are available on your right and take over a portion of the seats on your left. But the fact remains that members of parliament of the various parties face each other. In many other assemblies there is a semicircular seating arrangement, which undoubtedly enables the chairman to maintain greater control over the various members who may speak from time to time. No doubt there are advantages in both systems.
Under our arrangement, those who are seated opposite to the government must of necessity see some of the movements that are carried out between members of the government. Seated here opposite the government benches, although perhaps my head may have been lowered by the realization that we are a small minority, I could not help seeing movements which were carried out on the other side of the house about an hour ago. I could not help seeing the Minister of National Defence rise from his seat, walk over to the hon. member for Temiscouata and ask him to provide some comic relief-[DOT]


Brooke Claxton: Mr. Chairman, -


George Randolph Pearkes: I have the floor, Mr. Chairman.


Brooke Claxton: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Chairman. There is not a word of truth in what the hon. gentleman says; and I ask the hon. member for Temiscouata to confirm what I have said. I also think that this is a most improper remark to be made by one member about another.


An hon. Member:: Not at all.


James Arthur Ross: The minister certainly was improper.


Jean-François Pouliot: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Chairman, and I will say that the Minister of National Defence did not say a word to me of that kind.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Jean-François Pouliot: I asked him a question.


An hon. Member:: What did he go over there for?


Jean-François Pouliot: I will tell you what question I asked him. I asked him if the leader of the opposition had asked him a question about the detail of the item in the estimates, and he said no. I did not say a word besides that to the Minister of National Defence from the time the sitting commenced at eight o'clock tonight. I protest strongly against the unwarranted, untimely, uncalled for and untrue statement of the hon. member for Nanaimo.


George Randolph Pearkes: Of course it is quite impossible for me, Mr. Chairman, to know what the conversation was.


Brooke Claxton: On a question of privilege, Mr. Chairman-


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Order. Two hon. members cannot be on their feet at the same time. When the chairman rises, hon. members must resume their seats. The hon. member for Nanaimo has made a statement. If I recall it correctly, it was that he had seen the Minister of National Defence go over, talk to the hon. member for Temiscouata, and ask him "to provide comic relief".


Jean-François Pouliot: A shameful suggestion.


Louis-René Beaudoin: The Minister of National Defence rose to a question of privilege, said that the statement made by the hon. member for Nanaimo was untrue, and asked the hon. member for Temiscouata to confirm what he had said. The hon. member for Temiscouata rose on a question of privilege and also said that the statement made by the hon. member for Nanaimo was not correct. In the circumstances, I think there is a simple way of putting an end to the discussion of this point of privilege, that is to follow the practice and the rule of procedure in this chamber and accept the statement made by the Minister of National Defence and the statement made by the hon. member for Temiscouata. I would expect the hon. member for Nanaimo to do precisely that.


George Randolph Pearkes: Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to admit that it was quite impossible for me to hear what the conversation was.


Brooke Claxton: Oh, no, Mr. Chairman-


George Alexander Drew: Sit down.


Brooke Claxton: I rise to a question of
privilege, and I ask that the hon. gentleman be asked-


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Brooke Claxton: -be ordered to withdraw his statement.


George Randolph Pearkes: Mr. Chairman, I repeat that I admit quite frankly it was impossible for me to hear what the Minister of National Defence said to the hon. member for Temiscouata. I drew conclusions. If these conclusions are wrong I frankly withdraw the statement which I made, in which I accused the Minister of National Defence of having asked the hon. member for Temiscouata to provide the comic relief; but the fact remains that the Minister of National Defence did walk over to and did have conversation with the hon. member for Temiscouata, and the hon. member for Temiscouata did provide the comic relief at that time.


Brooke Claxton: On a question of order, the hon. member for Nanaimo suggested that I, as a member of parliament and a member of the government, approached the hon. member for Temiscouata, than whom there is no less approachable member in the house, and asked him to co-ordinate our activities in order that we might provide some comic relief.


George Randolph Pearkes: I did not say that.


Brooke Claxton: That is what he suggested. Now he has withdrawn that suggestion. He said that his conclusions were drawn from the circumstances. I ask, Mr. Chairman, that the hon. member for Nanaimo make an unequivocal withdrawal and apology.


George Randolph Pearkes: Mr. Chairman-


Edmund Davie Fulton: On a point of order-


Louis-René Beaudoin: The hon. member for Nanaimo.


George Randolph Pearkes: I have only stated the facts, and I do repeat those facts: The Minister of National Defence did move across and did speak to the hon. member for Temiscouata.
I have no knowledge of what he said. The hon. member for Temiscouata then came up and spoke to you, Mr. Chairman, and returned to his seat, and he was seen by you next. The hon. member for Temiscouata did provide the comic relief to this very serious discussion which was going on.


Mr. Adamson:: Hear, hear.


George Randolph Pearkes: I fail-


Brooke Claxton: I think the situation is much more serious than that. The hon. member for Nanaimo, for whom I ordinarily have the greatest respect, has brought forward a suggestion that I proposed to the hon. member for Temiscouata that he should do something or other, and that he did it. I deny it absolutely.


Edmund Davie Fulton: All right; you are entitled to do that.


Brooke Claxton: The hon. member for Temiscouata has denied it absolutely. There is no warrant at all for the assumption which has now been repeated three times by the hon. member for Nanaimo, and he should make an unequivocal withdrawal of the whole thing.


George Randolph Pearkes: Mr. Chairman, I have been stating only the actual facts which happened as I saw them, sitting over here. The Minister of National Defence moved across to the seat of the hon. member for Temiscouata. I have no idea at all what he said. I did assume-


Jean-François Pouliot: I rise to a question of
privilege

Supply-National Defence


Louis-René Beaudoin: Order.


Jean-François Pouliot: -if you will permit me. The hon. member for Nanaimo has. made a statement in the first place which was untrue.


Brooke Claxton: Wholly.


Jean-François Pouliot: The Minister of National
Defence rose on a question of privilege to deny it, and I did likewise. The hon. member for Nanaimo then withdrew what he had said. After that was done he rose again to make a second insinuation, and this other statement is just as untrue as the first one. The two statements were untrue. They were to the effect that the Minister of National Defence had suggested to me to speak on this matter, and in the second place that the Minister of National Defence had come to me to speak to me before going to the back benches outside the chamber.
I will tell you, sir, that when I went to the chair it was to ask the chairman who was going to speak after the leader of the opposition. He said: "No one". I said: "Will you please see me after he sits down?" Then on my way back the minister did not say a word to me, but I spoke to him and I said: "I will speak to the leader of the opposition about the advisory council on manpower". That was all.
In the second place, as I said before, I asked for information, and in order to convey that information to the house afterwards I asked the Minister of National Defence as aforesaid if the leader of the opposition had asked him for detailed information about an item in the estimates. He did not say a word to me, just shook his head in a negative gesture. That was all.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: He spoke.


Jean-François Pouliot: He did not say a word, and afterwards I was speaking, and I was looking in front of me and I did not notice when the minister left his seat to go. He did not say a word to me. I know the hon. member for Nanaimo to be a gentleman and I hope that he will withdraw unequivocally what he has said.


Agar Rodney Adamson: He has nothing to withdraw.


Jean-François Pouliot: And which is completely contrary to the truth.


Agar Rodney Adamson: Nothing to withdraw.


George Randolph Pearkes: I honestly do not know how much farther I can go.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Will the hon. member permit me to help him?


George Randolph Pearkes: Certainly, I will be glad to.


Louis-René Beaudoin: The hon. member has accepted the statements made by the
2912	HOUSE OF
Supply-National Defence Minister of National Defence and the hon. member for Temiscouata as to the incorrect conclusions he had reached on having seen the Minister of National Defence going to talk to the hon. member for Temiscouata. He has withdrawn the objectionable words but immediately after withdrawing them he added something else. In his words there was an implication. Notwithstanding the fact that he was withdrawing the positive remarks that he had made he said the fact remained that the Minister of National Defence went to talk to the hon. member for Temiscouata, and the hon. member for Temiscouata came to speak to the chairman, and so on. From that there might be left the impression that the hon. member for Nanaimo was withdrawing the words at which the Minister of National Defence and the hon. member for Temiscouata took offence, but nevertheless what he had said previously might still remain in his mind to be true.


Edmund Davie Fulton: He is entitled to that.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Order. Of course the point is difficult to judge. When the hon. member for Nanaimo says, here are the facts, and then links his statement of facts with the words previously withdrawn and says, notwithstanding . . . there may be something in the declarations made about which the hon. member has a right to complain. I know that the hon. member for Nanaimo, if he withdraws, does not want to withdraw and then leave the implication that what he has withdrawn still stands. I will read to him citation 240 of Beauchesne, third edition, which appears at page 103:
It has been formally ruled by Speakers In the Canadian commons that a statement by an hon. member respecting himself and peculiarly within his own knowledge must be accepted, but it is not unparliamentary to temperately criticize statements made by a member as being contrary to the facts; but no imputation of intentional falsehood is permissible.
In this instance it is easy to dispose of the question of privilege. I know that the hon. member will not want to leave any implication that whatever he withdrew before still stands.


George Randolph Pearkes: Mr. Chairman, I have already stated that I could not hear what the minister said; and when the minister told me that he had not made any remarks I withdrew my statement, and I withdrew it without any question whatever. I then described certain scenes which we all witnessed in the house, and I do not wish to refer again to those matters because all hon. members1 in the chamber saw what happened. Perhaps I might be
[The Deputy Chairman.]

criticized for saying that the hon. member for Temiscouata provided a certain element of comic relief. I do not know-if that word is not acceptable, I am not going to press it.
But then I do come to a point which affects me somewhat personally. Reference was made to a former minister of national defence. He was a minister of national defence of whom I have a very close recollection, not as a member of the House of Commons, but as one of the officers who served under the minister of national defence. I frankly admit that on many occasions my views did not coincide with his. But I want to tell you, Mr. Chairman, that I have a very vivid memory of an occasion when he visited the division I was commanding in England, and had to be wheeled around in a chair because he was incapable of walking. In spite of great physical pain he went to visit the troops of my division, and spoke words of encouragement to them.
The memory of that man's name is hallowed in my recollection, and I regard the late Colonel J. L. Ralston, who was then minister of national defence, as one of the great Canadians in our history.
As a Canadian, I feel somewhat humiliated in having to sit here tonight and listen to a vicious attack made upon a man whose memory I cherish, although on many occasions I did1 not see eye to eye with him in some of the judgments he made.


Jean-François Pouliot: Mr. Chairman-


George Randolph Pearkes: I want to say that.


Jean-François Pouliot: I rise to a question of privilege.


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Jean-François Pouliot: I rise to a question of
privilege.


Louis-René Beaudoin: The hon. member
is rising to a question of privilege.


George Randolph Pearkes: I have no desire to discuss
that point any further.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Order.


George Randolph Pearkes: There is one thing I should
like to say-


Louis-René Beaudoin: The hon. member
for Nanaimo will understand that when another hon. member rises to a question of privilege, it must be taken up immediately.


Jean-François Pouliot: Mr. Chairman, I cannot thank you, but I appreciate the fact that you want the rules of the house to be observed.


An hon. Member:: More than you do.


Jean-François Pouliot: And by all members. I regret the words which have been just uttered by

the hon. member for Nanaimo, when he says that a statement made publicly in the House of Commons, and without any personal comment, was a vicious attack-


An hon. Member:: What was it?


Jean-François Pouliot: -on a former cabinet minister.


An hon. Member:: That is not a question
of privilege.


Jean-François Pouliot: It is a question of privilege,
surely, because I made no vicious attack against the memory of Colonel Ralston. I just mentioned a statement which is a public statement, and is recorded in Hansard, and I drew my conclusions from it. There was no personal word added to it, and there was no vicious attack against the late Colonel Ralston. I submit that under the circumstances the hon. member for Nanaimo should withdraw the expression "vicious attack".


Edmund Davie Fulton: On a question of privilege-


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Edmund Davie Fulton: On a question of privilege;
I am sure the house is glad to hear the withdrawal of the hon. member for Temiscouata with regard to this matter.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Order. The hon. member for Temiscouata has risen to a question of privilege and has asked the hon. member for Nanaimo to modify the expression "vicious attack". Before the hon. member for Nanaimo replies or explains the expression he used, I would refer the committee to citation 298 in Beauchesne, second edition, page 97, which says:
The following expressions have been ruled to be unparliamentary in the British House of Commons:
Alleging that a member's statements were-[DOT]
And then there is a list of some twenty expressions, one of which is "vicious and vulgar". Then above there is the expression "a malignant attack"; and I would- consider the words "malignant" and "vicious" to be somewhat similar in meaning. I would ask the hon. member to consider this citation.


George Randolph Pearkes: If the word "vicious" is considered unparliamentary, I should like to qualify it. Would it be proper to say "unwarranted attack"? I am not trying to be provocative. But an attack was made on the late Colonel Ralston, and he was charged with the responsibility for the loss of Canadian lives. That cannot easily be passed over. As an officer who served under the late minister of national defence I could not help resenting that remark.
Now, I do not want to prolong this argument; it was never my intention to do so. The observation has been made that the opposition has not been able to make an 80709-1864
Supply-National Defence effective criticism of the statements made by the government in connection with these defence estimates. The hon. member for Parkdale accused the opposition of not working on these things. I never heard any member of the government suggest before what an opposition should do in criticizing government policy-although they have quite frequently asked the opposition what they would do if they were in office.
However, those are not the main points. What I was rising to do was to make the suggestion that perhaps we might get along with a careful examination of the estimates-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


George Randolph Pearkes: -and that the Minister of National Defence had suggested that, after a general discussion on the general defence policy, we might turn to the details of the estimates as they are laid out at page 269 of the book of estimates. He suggested we might deal with them in the order of administration, inspection services, civil defence, and so on, and that they should be taken one by one so that there would be a chance to discuss each of them.
I had risen earlier because I was under the impression, rightly or wrongly, that the minister wanted time to collect his thoughts in order to reply to the leader of the opposition. Then another member from the government benches spoke. Perhaps the minister might now reply to the leader of the opposition, after which we might reach the stage when the committee would consider that it had dealt sufficiently with the general matters of defence and would be prepared to go ahead.
It was suggested just before six o'clock that this item be carried; but I do not think that was in accord with the wish of the committee as expressed yesterday, or the day before, when the minister himself made the suggestion that we take these items one by one. I personally concurred in that procedure, and I think the majority of members concurred. Therefore it must be realized, as the leader of the opposition has pointed out, that we do lack a great deal of information, that there are many matters that could be discussed in a smaller committee and the anxiety of members of the opposition would thereby be relieved if they could get answers to their questions. The members of the opposition realize full well that in the interest of security they cannot ask for full explanations here. They realize that they cannot ask the minister to give such answers in the house when every word that he says may be communicated to those who may possibly be our enemies. Therefore

Supply-National Defence there is a certain degree of anxiety and uncertainty, which is reasonable, amongst members of the opposition.
It is unfair for supporters of the Liberal government to accuse the opposition of not working and not being able to get information when every avenue of obtaining more detailed information is closed to them. We recognize that fact. The minister has stated time and time again in the past that he will not have a defence committee. Tonight the leader of the opposition has pleaded with the minister once again in this critical situation to give the opposition a committee. In the face of the challenges which have been made by members such as the hon. member for Parkdale, in the face of challenges which have been made in the press that the opposition is not doing its duty, in order that such challenges may be met the leader of the opposition has once again appealed to the Minister of National Defence for such a committee.
There is no thought of having a committee before which a General MacArthur or a General Marshall would be called. That is not the Canadian way of doing things, but the Canadian people have a right, I think, to have their representatives informed on certain matters which those representatives themselves realize it is not expedient to ask to have explained in the open forum of this house. There is the appeal made by the leader of the opposition. I hope that the minister has now had time to collect his thoughts and is ready to reply to the leader of the opposition. If that is done, and if there are no more questions on the general discussion, then instead of asking that the item be carried, as was done at six o'clock. I suggest that the committee follow the line of procedure suggested by the Minister of National Defence.


Mr. Wright:: Mr. Chairman, I am sure we have witnessed tonight one of the most extraordinary happenings I have seen in this house in some twelve years. We have seen a Liberal member on the government side of the house rise in his place and belittle the judgment of a former minister of national defence who, as the hon. member for Nanaimo said), went to Europe in a wheelchair to try to find out the difficulties which confronted our troops over there. Yet the hon. member for Temiscouata rises in the house and belittles his judgment while members on the Liberal side sit with smiles on their faces. It is most extraordinary. After that we find the Minister of National Defence rising to defend his own reputation but saying nothing about the reputation of Colonel Ralston.


Jean-François Pouliot: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a question of privilege. Nothing offends me more than when my statements are distorted by anyone, colleagues, newspapers or anyone else. I can be called names and I do not
care. The	statements	are	there.	WhatI said is	recorded,	and	there	is noreason whatever for	the	hon.	member
for Melfort, any more than the horn, member for Naniaimo, to distort what I have said and to draw wrong conclusions therefrom. I want them to be fair, honest and just and not to try to give a different meaning to what I said. I mentioned only one statement and I drew conclusions from it. I did not say anything else about the former minister of national defence.


Percy Ellis Wright: That is exactly the point, Mr. Chairman. I am saying that the hon. member for Temiscouata drew absolutely unfair conclusions, conclusions which are not based on facts or truth.


Jean-François Pouliot: That is your right, but it is your conclusions that are wrong.


Percy Ellis Wright: The hon. member for
Temiscouata got up in this house and implied that Colonel Ralston's statement in the house that he thought the Canadian troops needed reinforcement was the cause of the German attack on the American front.


Jean-François Pouliot: The hon. member remembers if he said that?


Percy Ellis Wright: I remember it, and for any member of this house to get up and say such a thing, and other members behind him smile at it, and the Minister of National Defence not come to the defence of the former minister-


Jean-François Pouliot: Nobody smiled about it, only the hon. gentleman.


Percy Ellis Wright: Oh no; there were no smiles on this side of the house. The smiles were all behind you. That is all I am going to say on this matter. The leader of the opposition stated that he believed we should have more details before us before voting on this first item. The first item is a vote of $1,412 million. The total amount which we are going to vote in these estimates for all departments of the government this year is $2,441 million. For all other items besides national defence contained in the book of estimates we are only going to vote $1,029 million. What information is there in the book on this first item of national defence? There is half a page in a book of some 500 pages and four pages of details for a vote of $1,412 million.

Let us look at what they do in some other parliaments. I have in my hand the books of defence estimates of the British House of Commons for 1951. The army estimates contain ten items and there is a book of 196 pages giving details and explanatory notes. Then there are the air estimates, another book of 212 pages of details and explanatory notes on all the different items. Then we 'have the navy estimates, a book of some 300 pages with details and explanatory notes for all the items. That is what members of the British house have before them when they vote on their national defence estimates. We have an item of $1,412 million occupying half a page plus three pages of details of services. I ask hon. members if that is a fair thing to present to this house. Is it any wonder that the house wants a committee? Is it any wonder that we need more details before we can intelligently vote $1,412 million for this purpose? The people of this country are prepared to spend money for national defence, but they do expect this house to see that the money is spent wisely. That is what we are sent here for; that is what the hon. members who sit behind the Minister of National Defence are here for. Yet we see them ready to accept everything the minister wants to say. When the hon. member for Temiscouata makes a comic opera speech, they pound their desks. To them it is funny. Well, it is not funny to the people of Canada. With the situation that exists in the world today we in this house should realize that these defence estimates may mean life or death to many of our young people. We should see that we get the best value for our money, the best planes, the best tanks and the best equipment possible.
Are we getting it? Well, between 1946 and 1950 we spent $1,237,294,000 on national defence; but when we had to send a brigade to Korea we had a hard job to find the men. When the defence estimates were before the public accounts committee it was admitted that we did not have one modern tank in 1950. It was admitted that we had only two jet-propelled planes in 1950, and one of them blew up. It was admitted that when we sent three destroyers to Korea we had to scrape the bottom of the barrel to get enough men to man them. Yet we spent $1,237,294,000 in 1946-47, 1947-48, 1948-49 and 1949-50. Is it not time we asked a few questions in this house? Is it not time we got a few more details? I think we should have more information in the estimates so we can intelligently discuss the expenditure of this $1,412 million.
I do not like the attitude of this house tonight. I did not like the speech of the
Supply-National Defence hon. member for Temiscouata, making a joke of this whole matter of defence. It is too important at this time to joke about. Some twelve months ago the Minister of National Defence intimated that we were going to raise forty squadrons, and that we would send eleven squadrons to Europe. What have we done? We have sent one squadron to Europe. We are going to send two more, and when those squadrons are finally equipped and sent we will have one squadron left at home. It is true that it takes time to produce jet planes; we realize that, but I do not think it takes all the time we have spent in the last four years.
As far as I am concerned I believe we should have a national survey of the manpower and material resources of this country. I do not believe we can have an efficient war effort without first knowing what we have to work with. That is the first problem, and it is time we had that survey. I do not care whether you call it national registration or anything else; it is essential that we have it. It is essential that when we are spending the sums of money we are going to spend this year and in the next three years, we have a committee on war expenditures such as we had during the last war, which can keep track of these moneys. That is all this house wants. It wants the government to take it into its confidence, and see that the taxpayers are getting value for the money being spent on national defence.


Mr. Gardiner:: I think I am the senior
member of the government in the house at the moment, and one of three in their seats this evening who served in the government during the time Colonel Ralston was a member of the government. On a question of privilege, Mr. Chairman, I want to call your attention to the fact that the hon. member for Melfort made a suggestion which I think it is improper for a member of this house to make. Everyone knows that the hon. member for Temiscouata has the ability to bring smiles to the faces of members on all sides. He also has the ability to fum around and move some of us to tears occasionally. During the greater part of the speech this evening by the hon. member for Temiscouata there were smiles on the faces of all hon. members of this house.


Some hon. Members:: No.


James Garfield Gardiner: Well, one hon. member has called attention to the fact that we sit face to face in this house, not in a circular arrangement. Sitting in a front bench on this side I think I have an opportunity to see the faces of hon. members on the other

Supply-National Defence side a little better than they can see themselves. I think I would be quite correct in saying that every hon. member on the other side smiled at certain remarks that were made by the hon. member for Temiscouata.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Not when
he was talking about Ralston.


James Garfield Gardiner: I would be just as correct
in that statement as any hon. member opposite would be in saying there were smiles on this side of the house. I do not know what expression was on the faces of those behind me, but I do know the expression that was on my own face and I know the expression that was on the faces of other hon. members I could see. Hon. members were not smiling at the particular remark which was made and which has been referred to. Some hon. members may have agreed with it and some may have disagreed, but to say that hon. members on this side of the house had smiles on their faces as a result of the suggested attack on a previous minister of this government is contrary to the facts. Hon. members on this side did no such thing.
The hon. member made a statement to the effect that hon. members over here smiled at suggestions that were made in connection with the slaughter of men during the last war. There is not a member on this side of the house or on the other side who would smile at a statement like that. Statements may have been made that caused hon. members to smile, but no hon. member on either side of the house smiled because of those remarks, whether or not they agreed with them. I want to make this correction in the Hansard that contains the remarks of the hon. member for Melfort. Those of us who served in this house during the last war, particularly those who served in the government during the whole war, and those of us who had members of our families serving overseas, rather resent anyone making the statement in this house that we smiled at anything that happened during the last war. We did not smile at any reference made to the prosecution of the last war. There may have been other things in the speech at which we smiled, but I think a statement of that kind should be withdrawn.


Percy Ellis Wright: I am quite prepared to accept the statement of the minister as far as he personally is concerned, but I notice that a second minister rose without defending Colonel Ralston.


James Garfield Gardiner: Colonel Ralston does not need any defence by anyone in this house. Colonel Ralston made a reputation for himself


that is written into the history of this country, and it does not require defence. I may have disagreed with him, just as the hon. member for Nanaimo said that he as a soldier may have disagreed with the minister during the war. I may have disagreed on certain matters, but I recognize the fact that no greater servant of the Canadian people ever lived than Colonel Ralston, whether he was right or wrong on certain occasions.


Jean-François Pouliot: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a question of privilege, with respect to the speech made a moment ago by the hon. member for Melfort. I will remind him of this, that if I made jokes about the living I respect the dead. There was no jocular remark in my reference to the statements of the former minister of national defence, and the hon. member knows it.


Percy Ellis Wright: Then why make the reference?


James Arthur Ross: Before I proceed with the remarks I want to make, I want to refer to what I consider to be a burlesque in this house for the last forty or fifty minutes this evening. I was ashamed of it. As the Minister of Agriculture has stated, I too had the privilege of serving in this house from 1940 on, and during the greater part of the war with the then minister of national defence, the late Colonel Ralston. Like Colonel Ralston, I had the privilege of serving in the first world war, and I want to say to this house, and to the country, that Colonel Ralston enjoyed a great reputation as a soldier in the first world war. As the Minister of Agriculture has stated, he was a great Canadian. He should be remembered by the people of Canada as a great public servant, and a great Canadian. I am very sure that the service he gave to this country as minister of national defence greatly shortened his life. I was ashamed to hear my good friend the hon. member for Temiscouata state that the former minister was responsible for the slaughter or loss of Canadian lives. Now, that is a very nasty thing to accuse anybody of.


Jean-François Pouliot: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a question of privilege. The word "nasty" is unparliamentary and I want the hon. member to withdraw it. I want him to behave properly according to the rules of the house. There must be an end to the distortion of what I said. I want a ruling.


Louis-René Beaudoin: I do not want to enter too much into the discussion that is now taking place. We have before us an incident with which it is very difficult to deal. On the one side some hon. members feel that they must say something about the good deeds and the memory of a late minister of the

crown, who sat in this house for many years. On the other hand, the member who has provoked these statements claims that he did not want to attack the memory of the late minister, and he has risen on a question of privilege to have words withdrawn that are attributed to some statement he has made, such as the word "nasty". As he says, this word appears in a long list of those words which, at one time or another, have been considered unparliamentary.
I think that perhaps we should look at this incident in another way. Impartial as I am in this dispute, I think the committee will permit me to ask hon. members if, from the point of view of prestige, decorum and order, we are gaining much by pursuing this discussion. I shall ask the hon. member for Souris to continue his remarks, but I would ask him also to bear in mind the remarks I have just made. I believe the members of the committee should now consider taking up a suggestion which was made by the hon. member for Nanaimo and the Minister of National Defence, and that is to study the details of the estimates as shown on page 269. We could proceed by calling each heading: administration, civil defence, general services, and so on.


James Arthur Ross: I bow to your ruling, as you know sir, and I shall withdraw the word "nasty" if it is improper. I still must maintain that J believe it very undignified and very improper for a member of this House of Commons to speak of a past member as was done this evening. I believe my good friend the hon. member for Temiscouata, after having had time to think this over, will be parliamentarian enough to get up and apologize for some of the words-


Jean-François Pouliot: Well, well, I do not want a lecture.


James Arthur Ross: He may withdraw the statement he made about the minister of national defence being responsible for the loss of Canadian lives. I shall go further, Mr. Chairman, and say that I was surprised the Minister of National Defence did not attempt to get up as soon as the member sat down and refute some of those statements, or defend the former minister of national defence whom he served in this government during those war years. I know the Minister of National Defence was a very good soldier in the first war. I am sure when he has time to think this over he will refute the statement made by a member of his party this evening, and will speak on behalf of his old colleague the late Colonel Ralston. I know he is the
Supply-National Defence type of soldier, minister, and member of this House of Commons who will do that when he replies.
I do not wish to say anything further about that, but I hope we do not have any more remarks like that about a great public servant, and a great Canadian citizen, such as the late Colonel Ralston. With respect to these estimates, in view of the requests that have been made in the past, it is possible that the Minister of National Defence may decide, after consideration, to set up a committee of this house on national defence. As I listened to the member for Temiscouata, I thought he was most inconsistent. He said we now had a select committee of this House of Commons, and then he proceeded to ridicule the idea of giving certain information publicly to this committee. The idea in setting up a select committee composed of members from all parties of this house is to give them access to information, and an opportunity to question some officials who cannot be questioned under our procedure in this house. I think that is very proper, and I am very keen about having a committee set up during a time of great international distress such as we now have.
There is another matter about which I am personally very much concerned. I want to make a request to the minister, and to the government, that those people who are actually serving in a theatre of war-young men are dying for us in a theatre of war today-and who are making this great sacrifice, should be exempt from income tax. I do not say that the people who will be going to Europe prior to the declaration of war there should receive that consideration. I do not believe there is a patriotic citizen in Canada who would not be willing to exempt from taxation the troops who are actually serving in a theatre of war. I believe that is the least this government can do. I want to make a very earnest plea to the minister to use his influence with his colleagues and have that done.
I was very surprised to hear the minister state-at least I thought he did-that it was very difficult to find an area large enough in this great nation of ours to handle brigade training. Surely that can be brought into being in this country. If I followed the minister correctly, that was what he implied. We have examples in Great Britain, where they have had a committee such as the one for which we have been asking here. I am sure that committee has rendered great service to the taxpayers of that country without giving any information to the enemy. It is just drawing a red herring across the trail to make accusations such as that. There

Supply-National Defence are many other things that I might have discussed, but I do not want to take further time of the committee, because I know the minister wants to reply. I hope he will accede to the setting up of this committee, which is so very important from all angles to the people of this nation during these difficult and distressing times. I hope the minister will give fair consideration to these requests that I have made, Mr. Chairman.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Mr. Chairman, I had not
intended to make any remarks in this debate but I am rather inspired to do so by a remark that was made by the minister this afternoon to the effect that a unit which has its headquarters in my town in the province of New Brunswick was the first unit in Canada to complete its complement with regard to recruiting.


Brooke Claxton: I did not say that. I do not know that yet. I just said it had completed it on the first day.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: If it completed it on the first day, I think the minister can rest assured that it will continue to complete it and will be ahead on the last day.
As I say, we are proud indeed of that accomplishment. I might also point out that we in New Brunswick are proud of both the units that have been chosen or selected by the minister for this special brigade. We would also have been proud if the other units in that province had been chosen, because our reserve units in New Brunswick have always done well. Not only in this war but in previous wars they have always maintained their record with regard to numbers in recruiting. I think this is a significant fact. I do not think it is because we in New Brunswick are more patriotic than are the people in any other part of Canada; but there is another factor which also helps recruiting in our province, namely the fact that our people in that section of the dominion have not the large amount of employment which is enjoyed in other parts of Canada. I am not saying that this is the prime reason why the people of New Brunswick are the first to fill their units; but in the past it has been one of the reasons. I should like to say to the minister and to the cabinet that I hope we shall not only be the first in filling the units, having regard to recruiting, but that we also shall be given the opportunity of being the first in providing war materials and other necessities.
I remember that in the first war Colonel Fowler raised, in my province, two regiments inside a month. In the last war there was a unit which went to Hong Kong. When it was given orders to prepare to go to Hong Kong, it had not more than 50 per cent of the men
fMr. Ross (Souris).]

required. The men could not be recruited in their own recruiting section, andt these men were recruited, from New Brunswick. One reason for that was that, in the section in which this unit should have recruited, there was so much employment that they could not get the necessary recruits and had to get them from the province of New Brunswick.
If a war occurs we shall have to raise hundreds of thousands of men, as we did in the past two wars. It is possibly not necessary now; but if it becomes necessary to raise large numbers of men, as it was in previous wars, we shall have to adopt some other system of providing men than that by which they have been provided in the past; because the system which we have had does not bear fairly upon sections such as the one from which I come.
I was not here tonight, Mr. Chairman, when this debate arose with regard to Colonel Ralston. I do not intend to make any derogatory remarks about anyone. I did, however, know Colonel Ralston. I come from the maritime provinces, as did Colonel Ralston; and may I say that there is no man at present or in the past whose name stands higher in the maritime provinces than does that of Colonel Ralston. He was a great soldier and a great Canadian. I had the opportunity of serving under him in the city of Fredericton-in a camp there-and also in Windsor, Nova Scotia. I received much help from him.
The great crime which Colonel Ralston committed, if he committed any crime in the eyes of the people of Canada, was this. In the latter part of the war, when he knew that there was a great scarcity of men overseas, he asked for men in Canada. He knew that there were in this country thousands of well-trained men who could have gone overseas to assist the men fighting in Europe at that time. But instead of getting the men that he required, as he expected, he came to my camp and he went to camps in other parts of this dominion, and had to take cooks, clerks and hundreds of other men who were poorly trained instead of the men whom he had hoped to get, namely the well-trained men throughout Canada. If any crime was committed by Colonel Ralston, I say that was it; and I think it is one that every fair-minded man and woman in Canada will say that he was justified in committing.
It is not my intention to say anything more tonight, Mr. Chairman. I deeply regret that the name of a great man and a great Canadian should have been brought into this debate tonight as it has been, and that the debate should have been conducted in such a manner as it has been conducted tonight.


Mr. Fair:: Mr. Chairman, I will not take
up too much time; in fact, I will take just a few minutes. I also want to pay my respects to a great Canadian in the person of the late Colonel Ralston. He has been condemned by some here just because he was doing the right thing for his country in trying to have equality of service, something which we have advocated right along. I think that by this time the facts are known, even though at one time they were not known to most people throughout the country.
On the 18th day of last month, in the debate on the budget address, I advocated that the men who were doing our fighting should not be subject to income tax. At that time I pointed out that they are paying their full share over there, by offering everything they have. They do not know whether they will ever return to this country; and if they do so, they are asked to help pay off the war debt and contribute towards paying other expenses which are in some cases unnecessary. They are asked to do this in addition to doing their bit over there. In spite of the explanation given by the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Finance this afternoon, with his customary energy, I feel that some method can be worked out which will free the fighting men of the obligation of paying income tax. Let those who are staying home and making good profits make up those taxes.
There is a question that I want to ask the Minister of National Defence in connection with a camp in the best constituency in Canada. I refer to Wainwright camp in the Battle River constituency. At the present time it is one of the largest camps in Canada, although not many years ago we had buffalo, yak, elk and many other animals running about the country there. They were inside fences; but the national park has been done away with, and now it is turned into a military camp. On another occasion last year I had representations from the people of the town of Wainwright and the board1 of trade there with respect to housing for the wives and families of the officers and men attending that camp. The board of trade pointed out that in that town there have been provided schools, a good hospital, water and sewers. I understand that at the present time nothing has been done in connection with providing homes for the wives and families of those men serving at that camp. Only a short time ago I read that quite a large amount of money is being spent at Rockcliffe air station in order to provide similar accommodation. I should like to know now from the Minister of National Defence what provision is being made at
Supply-National Defence Wainwright camp. Buildings might be erected either at the town of Wainwright or near the camp, wherever the department might find it to be most suitable for them to be erected.


Major James William Coldwell: Before the minister speaks I want to reiterate a suggestion that we have made several times, and that is for a war expenditures committee. I have noticed that at times it has been referred to as a defence committee. I want to make it very plain to the minister and to the committee that we think the defence policy of the government must be the responsibility of the government. It is not a committee to go into all the phases of defence, and the policy of the government regarding defence, that I think the house needs. I do not think anyone in the house is really asking for that, but sometimes it is said that that is what is being asked for. What we need is a committee that can go into all the phases of war expenditure, including the expenditures of the defence departments.
We did that in effect during the last war. At the beginning I think it was intended that this might be confined more or less to the department of munitions and supply, but hon. members who were on that committee will recall that we had the military men before us who told us a great deal about the equipment, the expenditures and the arrangements made for obtaining the equipment. We all saw to it, or we were given the information to enable us to understand, that we were getting the equipment that the armed forces needed.
I just rose to say that, because I did not want the minister to misunderstand. It is not a committee that would go into the policy, because we cannot take the responsibility for that policy. We can take responsibility only for the things that concern us as a house.
Just before I sit down I want to say also that all of us who sat in the house during the war had, I think, the highest regard for Colonel Ralston. As has been said so many times here this evening, he was a great Canadian, he was a great gentleman and one who invariably treated every hon. member with the greatest consideration and courtesy. Indeed, because he attended to the matters that were brought to him by individual members and because he was working long hours, as I know his own staff of assistants did, he served his country in a manner that I think will be an example to any minister of the crown in any department who may come after him in the years ahead.


Agar Rodney Adamson: The quite shocking statement has been made in this house at least

Supply-National Defence by implication that Ralston's policy cost us lives, whereas as a matter of fact, Mr. Chairman, if there was any Canadian during the last war whose policy saved lives it was Colonel Ralston, and his insistence on getting the reinforcements that were needed instead of sending tired men back into the line over and over again, units with half or two-thirds strength, units improperly rested, units filled, instead of with combat infantry, with cooks, clerks and people not properly trained in their weapons-if there was any individual whose policy saved Canadian lives in the last war, it was Colonel Ralston. And in order to keep the record straight I want to read into this night's Hansard Colonel Ralston's statement on November 29, 1944, after he had resigned from the cabinet, as the reasons why he resigned, and as recorded at pages 6668 and 6669 of Hansard. I want to quote three paragraphs of Colonel Ralston's statement:
It is most desirable that losses be replaced quickly. If they are not replaced, there are less men for the job, with the consequent additional strain. If they are not replaced, morale is bound to be lowered. It is all very well to say that units may be filled up by the end of the month or the end of the week, but what about the days and nights in between? And so pools of reinforcements in the battle areas ensure that reinforcements are available to the units when needed. It ensures that they are not dependent for their reinforcements on the arrival of a convoy, or the uncertainties of how many the convoy will bring due to shortages in the United Kingdom or in another battle area.
It means everything to men in the line to see new men come in beside them to fill the gaps while the battle is on. The men can understand shortages if they know that there are no reinforcements available, but it is different-and I found this particularly in Italy-when the men know that we have these trained infantry men of the N.R.M.A. in Canada who can be made available.
In Italy I visited the reinforcement unit and most of the infantry battalions. I talked with the men themselves, and time and again I got that same story-about having to go back in the line repeatedly, or not having leave, or being short-handed, when trained N.R.M.A. men could be made available to give them relief.
Then on page 6669:
In. the last war-
That is the first world war. I continue:
In the last war battles were short, the objectives were limited and long static periods intervened. In this war a battle is a series of continuous offensive operations, or, to put it the other way, a battle is a continuous series of offensive operations. That makes it most necessary that units while they are in the battle, be reinforced on the move to keep up the momentum of the operation and each unit's fighting efficiency. That does not mean that units are kept in the line a longer time than they should be. They are withdrawn and replaced constantly by other units. It only means that, while they are there, the activity is more intense, and to support men and the success of the operation the ranks should be filled up promptly.

That was the statement the minister made on that memorable night of November 29, 1944. That was the statement of a man who had seen what lack of reinforcements did to an army. He had spent not only days but weeks in Italy on the fighting fronts, and he knew from first-hand experience how the shortage of reinforcements increased the incidence of casualties. The fact that he had to resign from this government for his courage is to me one of the black marks on Canadian political history.
I want to come now, Mr. Chairman, to the question of a defence committee. I have advocated this for some years, and a minister just the other day, in fact the day before yesterday, emphasized the importance of this committee. General Marshall, in testifying before the Senate committee, said that if certain policies were carried out, Russia was likely to declare war on us and, according to the report I saw in the newspaper-I have not got it with me-rain atomic bombs on the defenceless cities of the United States and other parts of North America.
Well, if that statement is true, if our potential enemy has this weapon in such numbers as intimated in General Marshall's testimony, then the House of Commons and the country should be apprized of the fact. It is not a matter of secrecy. The Secretary of Defense in the United States made that statement; and if he made it, surely we should be informed of the true situation. If the situation is as represented by the press reports, then we should know exactly what the situation is. If it is not as General Marshall states, then he has made a political statement to the defence committee.
That is something that affects us very closely in Canada. If our potential enemy is making atomic bombs in large quantities, then it is surely debatable as to why we should not be making this weapon ourselves. Those are questions a defence committee could go into. No one on the committee would ask for secret information. The situation as intimated by the Secretary of Defense in the United States in open testimony, or at least in testimony that was not censored, certainly indicated that we in North America are in a most perilous state. The House of Commons, the representatives of the people of Canada, should be informed equally as well as the representatives of the people of the United States; and I feel that a defence committee is a proper instrument for that information. I say this sincerely, that a defence committee would be of inestimable

help to the government. In a defence committee, composed, presumably, to a great extent, of ex-servicemen, it would be impossible to have what one must consider to have been the rather disgraceful scene we saw in this chamber tonight.


Brooke Claxton: Mr. Chairman, we have had a long day. There has been a good deal of heat, and not much light.


An hon. Member:: Who started it?


Brooke Claxton: I suggest that around about five or five-fifteen there was a general impression that we were ready to -consider the estimates of the Department of National Defence in detail, beginning at page 269. Since that time events have taken a different turn, an-d no one -could regret that more than myself.
We have a heavy responsibility today, trying to do everything we can to get this country as prepared -as it -can be, with the resources put at our disposal by parliament. On that account it becomes important that we should get on with the job and have the utmost possible guidance from parliament. But parliament itself has its own responsibility in ensuring that in the support of our great defence effort-and it is a great one- we should have the enlightened and informed support of the whole Canadian people, every section of it.
On that -account it becomes of terrific importance that what we say here and what we do here should be said and done with a full sense of responsibility, so that we build up our strength and the strength of the nations -allied with us, and so that we encourage our people to work together, and so that we create unity-not disunity.
Every now -and again I recognize-and I have been ten years in the House of Commons -that we have an interlude where some exchange takes -place. But it is terribly important that we -get -back to -the main job, which is that of building up the defences of this country so that we, with others, -can stand -against the forces of the aggressor nations.
On that account I must say before -the debate concludes tonight, for the -purpose -of the record-because it is unnecessary to do it for any other reason-that Colonel Ralston needs no praise from me, or from any other man in the House of Commons. Nothing we can say or do here will add to or detract from the record he has made for himself. That lives in the records of Canada.
Supply-National Defence
But I do say: Let us get on with the job- just as he would have wanted us to do. Let us start at page 269, as I thought we would this afternoon, -and give -the information that can be given-and which we are being prevented from giving, by a discussion such as that which occurred.


George Alexander Drew: Don't talk nonsense.


Brooke Claxton: If I am -concluding this discussion-


George Alexander Drew: You are not.


Brooke Claxton: Then I might have something to say later.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The man who started it was your own member from Tem-iscouat-a.


Brooke Claxton: I might have . something to
say later, but I had hoped we would get on with the business, which is to discuss the estimates of the Department of National Defence, which are before the -committee in the form recommended by the Auditor General. This is the form similar to that adopted by other government departments, and it is changed substantially from last year. We are here to do that, and we would like to get on -with the job.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Chairman-


Some hon. Members:: Eleven o'clock.


George Alexander Drew: Perhaps it would help if the
minister would answer the question which has been asked, and that is as to whether he is prepared to appoint a committee. Then there woul-d be a chance to get on with the business with some assurance that we would get the facts.


Brooke Claxton: The appointing of a committee is not for me; it is for the government. The answer has been given half a dozen times.
Item stands.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Alphonse Fournier: Tomorrow we will
continue this debate. When it is concluded we will take up the veterans resolutions- and there are three of them on the order paper-Nos. 16, 5 and 17. I hope we do reach them.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
2S23
[Stage Direction]
Friday, May 11, 1951